




















n»MHUnwuim»uiim?BiuliMiiimiuimmaiiummmin«t 




























































. 







. 






;«V 








' 

■ 


. 

. 




. 














‘ 

, 








# • 




f 










■ 

• • 

.. 


.. 4 \\ 








. 
















* 

























. 

• • ■ ' ■ /■ - 

* 












































































































. 

’ 





















1 



































































































































» 


« 






















t 













V 













% 



• * 



























I 






















































































































































































































































SPEECHES 




GLENNI W: SCOFIELD 


WITH 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 



Printed for Private Circulation 

By J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 

PHILADELPHIA 

1892 


*\U- 




Vi/ifellifUjTOK.D.G 




t_4\5 

.S4- 


Copyright, 1892, by Ellie G. Scofield. 


By Transfer 
D. C. Public Library 
AUG 1 7 1934 


JH”4| 





//\TUJt{J Sr 


1- 


fK 




fI,0M 


LfB p/VR7 


Public Library. 

WASHINGTON. D. C« 
11ECKIV El) 

NOV 9 - 1901 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 


During my father’s lifetime I frequently urged him to 
have his speeches published, and once so far succeeded as to 
get him to look over them with that end in view; but he 
abandoned the idea, saying they were upon subjects that were 
passed upon long ago and had become settled facts, and had 
therefore lost the interest that was attached to them when 
they were matters of uncertainty and discussion. 

Now, I think, they will, at least, be a pleasant memento of 
him for his friends to have, and as such I have decided to 
publish them. 

Ellie G. Scofield. 

Warren, Pennsylvania, 

November 20, 1801. 


3 



■ 





































. 








. 
































t 


















CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Biographical Sketch.. 7 

Speech on an Amendment of the State Constitution providing for 
the Election of Judges by the People. Delivered in the House of 


Representatives of the State of Pennsylvania, February 15, 1850 . 17 

Speech Renouncing Allegiance to the Democratic Party. Delivered 

at Warren, Pennsylvania, July 2, 1856 . 26 

Speech in favor of AntUslavery Men holding Public Office. Deliv¬ 
ered in the Senate of the State of Pennsylvania in 1857 . 29 

Speech on the Religious Disability of Witnesses. Delivered in the 
Senate of the State of Pennsylvania in 1858 . 33 


Speech on the Exemption of the Homestead from Sale for Debt. De¬ 
livered in the Senate of the State of Pennsylvania in 1859 .... 39 

Speech on the Abolition of Slavery. Delivered in the United States 

House of Representatives in February, 1864 . 44 

Speech on the Proposed Division of the Republic. Delivered in the 

House of Representatives, February 24, 1864 . 47 

Speech on the Bill “ To Guarantee to Certain States, whose Govern¬ 
ments are Usurped or Overthrown, a Republican form of Govern¬ 
ment.” Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 29, 1864. 58 

Speech on the Amendment of the Constitution to Prohibit Slavery. 
Delivered in the House of Representatives, January 6, 1865, in 

reply to the Hon. James Brooks. 69 

Annual Address at the New York State Fair. Delivered at Utica, 

New York, September 14, 1865 . 8<j 

Speech on the Bill to Extend the Right of Suffrage in the District of 
Columbia to People of Color. Delivered in the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, January 10, 1866 . 105 

Speech on Reconstruction. Delivered in the House of Representa¬ 
tives, April 28, 1866 . 117 

Speech on the Bill to Provide for Restoring to the States lately in 
Insurrection their Full Political Rights. Delivered in the House 

of Representatives, January 19, 1867 . 141 

Speech on the Bill Additional and Supplementary to an Act entitled 
“An Act to provide for the more Efficient Government of the 

5 














6 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 


Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867. Delivered in the House of 


Representatives, January 20, 1868 . 153 

Speech on the Purpose of the Republican Party. Delivered in the 

House of Representatives, July 14, 1868 . 162 

Speech on the Bill for the Resumption of Specie Payments. De¬ 
livered in the House of Representatives, January 27,1869 .... 181 
Speech on the Consideration of the Fifteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. Delivered in the House of 

Representatives, January 29, 1869 . 189 

Speech delivered at a Republican Mass-Meeting in Philadelphia, 

September 27, 1869 . 193 

Speech on a Bill for the Revision of the Tariff. Delivered in the 

House of Representatives, March 22, 1870 . 201 

Speech on the Reconstruction of the State of Georgia. Delivered in 

the House of Representatives, June 25, 1870 . 209 

Remarks made at the Congressional Convention which met at Ridge¬ 
way, Pennsylvania, August 2, 1870 . 223 

Speech on a Bill to Revise Relative Rank in the Navy. Delivered 

in the House of Representatives, January 24, 1871 . 228 

Speech on the Amnesty Bill. Delivered in the House of Representa¬ 
tives, January 28,1871 . 239 

Speech on the Bill to amend the Several Acts providing a National 
Currency, and to establish Free Banking. Delivered in the House 

of Representatives, May 19, 1874 . 244 

Address delivered on the Occasion of Laying the Corner-Stone of 
the State Hospital for the Insane at Warren, Pennsylvania, Sep¬ 
tember 10, 1874 . 257 

Speech on the Currency. Delivered at Warren, Pennsylvania, Octo¬ 
ber 26,1875 . 266 

Speech on the Nomination of James A. Garfield and Chester A. 
Arthur. The Purpose of the Confederates. Delivered at Warren, 
Pennsylvania, June 26, 1880 . 275 















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 


Glenni W. Scofield, son of Darius and Sallie Glenny 
Scofield, was born at Dewittville, New York, a small village 
on the east shore of Chautauqua Lake, March 11, 1817. 
His father was a native of Stamford, Connecticut, and his 
mother of the city of Newry, Ireland. They had eight chil¬ 
dren,—two daughters and six sons,—all of whom received a 
thorough common-school education. Two of the sons became 
farmers, and lived on their farms on the shore of the lake; 
one became an editor, and published a newspaper at Paines- 
ville, Ohio; and three became lawyers, two of whom followed 
their profession at Carthage, Illinois. 

When about fourteen years of age, the subject of this 
sketch, without contract or special purpose, entered a print¬ 
ing-office in the neighboring village of Westfield and learned 
to set type. He did not remain there very long, but long 
enough to become greatly interested in the business, and for 
some three or four years, at odd spells, he worked in various 
offices at Westfield, Mayville, and Jamestown. 

During several years thereafter, with the exception of short 
intervals of school-teaching, he attended the academy at 
Jamestown, preparing for college. 

In 1836 he entered the Freshman class of Hamilton Col- 



8 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


lege, at Clinton, New York, from which he was graduated in 
1840, and from which in after-life he received the degree 
of LL.D. 

While in college he was obliged to borrow considerable 
money. To discharge these debts, he spent two years, after 
graduation, in teaching; the first year in Fauquier County, 
Virginia, and the second, as principal of the academy at 
Smethport, Pennsylvania. While teaching, he studied law. 
Having earned money enough to free himself from debt, he 
surrendered the academy, entered a law-office, and pursued 
his professional studies until December, 1842, when he was 
admitted to the bar. Soon after, he began practice at Warren, 
Pennsylvania, in partnership with the Hon. C. B. Curtis. 
This partnership, which was formed and dissolved at the 
instance of Mr. Scofield, continued about six years. 

November 20, 1845, he was married to Miss Laura Mar- 
garetta Tanner, the daughter of Archibald Tanner, a retired 
merchant of great prominence in that part of the State. Four 
children were born of this marriage,—two sons and two 
daughters. One of the sons died in early infancy, and the 
other is married and resides in Warren. One of the daughters 
died February 17,1887, and the other resides with her mother. 

In 1846 he was appointed, by the Attorney-General of the 
State, District Attorney for Warren County, and held the 
office during the remainder of Governor Shunk’s adminis¬ 
tration. 

In politics Mr. Scofield had always acted with the Demo¬ 
cratic party. Devoted, however, to his profession, he sought 
no place outside of it; but in 1849 he was nominated, with- 


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 


9 


out his knowledge or consent, by the Democratic convention, 
as a candidate for the Assembly. Success seemed improbable. 
A proposition had been made to remove the county-seat from 
Warren to Youngsville. The proposition aroused very deep 
interest. Excitement ran high, overriding all party questions. 
Carter V. Kinnear, a prominent Democrat of considerable 
wealth and personal influence, had already been nominated 
by the advocates of removal, and L. D. Wetmore, a very 
popular young man, opposed to removal, had been nominated 
by the Whigs. The uncertainty of the situation and the 
anxiety of the managers for party success induced the Demo¬ 
cratic convention to overlook the merits of several contestants, 
who had become somewhat embittered against each other, and 
select an outsider. Mr. Scofield was elected by about four 
hundred plurality, and was re-elected the following year. 

During his legislative term he took a prominent part in all 
the important business of the House. At that time the de¬ 
bates were not regularly reported, and but few of his speeches 
have been preserved. But in the winter of 1850 an amend¬ 
ment to the Constitution, providing for the election of judges 
by the people, was before the House, and an enterprising 
newspaper reported and published a portion of the debate, 
including a speech by Mr. Scofield in its favor. The speech 
was extensively circulated, and contributed largely to the suc¬ 
cess of the amendment in the House and before the people. 

Having served the two terms in the Legislature, Mr. Sco¬ 
field returned to the practice of the law. Indeed, it had been 
scarcely interrupted by his legislative duties. When first 
elected, he formed a professional partnership with W. D. 

2 


10 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Brown, a promising young lawyer just admitted to the bar. 
This partnership continued until Mr. Scofield was forced, by 
Congressional duties, to relinquish the practice, except occa¬ 
sionally to aid in the trial of important cases. 

Although Mr. Scofield had always acted with the Demo¬ 
cratic party, he was, nevertheless, an earnest antislavery man. 
While in college he was a member of an antislavery society 
organized by the students. At that time, and for many years 
after, the slave power had not acquired control of the Dem¬ 
ocratic party, and persons with antislavery opinions were 
tolerated within its ranks. He advocated the Wilmot proviso 
in its day, opposed the repeal of the Missouri compromise, 
the enactment of the fugitive-slave law, and the whole brood 
of pro-slavery legislation. These opinions, finally, drove him 
into other political associations. 

In 1856, at a public meeting in his county, he formally 
renounced allegiance to the Democratic party, although he 
had retained for some years only a nominal connection with 
it, and thereafter joined with his neighbors in organizing the 
Republican party. He would have made this severance long 
before, but other existing parties did not suit him much 
better. The Whig party, though less dominated by the slave 
power than the Democratic, was heavily weighted with pro¬ 
slavery influence; and when, on this account, its disintegra¬ 
tion began, the “ Know-Nothings,” to whom he was stoutly 
opposed, took possession of its organization. He did not 
choose to join the political Abolition party, because he con¬ 
sidered it too reckless and impracticable to be of any service 
in opposing pro-slavery legislation. 


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 


11 


In order to harmonize and consolidate the political elements 
now gathered into the new party, it was deemed advisable to 
select candidates for local offices from those who had recently 
acted with the Whig and Democratic parties in about equal 
proportion. With this object in view, Mr. Scofield was nom¬ 
inated for the State Senate, and, in a district hitherto Demo¬ 
cratic, was elected by twelve hundred majority. During his 
term of three years, he participated largely in the debates of 
the Senate. His speech in favor of a bill to abolish the 
common-law rule by which persons whose religious belief did 
not come up to the orthodox standard were held to be in¬ 
competent as witnesses, was extensively circulated and com¬ 
mended by newspapers in sympathy with its sentiments. The 
same may be said of his speech in favor of exempting the 
homestead from sale for debt; and also a speech tracing and 
condemning the use of Federal patronage for the propagation 
of slavery. 

In 1861 a vacancy occurred in the judicial district com¬ 
posed of the counties of Mercer, Venango, Clarion, and Jef¬ 
ferson. A number of gentlemen residing in the district, and 
who expected to be candidates for election, were suggested for 
the temporary appointment; but Governor Curtin, unwilling 
to give any of them prestige in the race, tendered the appoint¬ 
ment to Mr. Scofield, who resided in another district. He 
accepted the unsought appointment, and served acceptably to 
the bar and people until a successor was elected. 

In September, 1862, Mr. Scofield was nominated for Con¬ 
gress by the Republican convention assembled at Ridgway, 
under the following circumstances. The district, which had 


12 


GLENNI W . SCOFIELD. 


been newly formed, was composed of the counties of Erie, 
Warren, McKean, Elk, Cameron, Clearfield, Jefferson, and 
Forest; all of which except Erie had formed part of the old 
district, represented by General Patten, whose re-nomination 
they favored. Mr. Scofield was himself a delegate from 
Warren County, instructed to support him. Erie County 
sent a large delegation of its most prominent citizens, in¬ 
structed to insist upon the nomination of John H. Walker. 
That county contained nearly as many Republican voters as 
all the other counties combined, and the delegates demanded 
a representation proportioned to the number of such voters. 
Over this question an angry contest at once arose. The Erie 
delegates, finding themselves out-voted, withdrew from the 
convention, announcing their intention to run their candidate 
as the nominee of Erie County, and immediately left the place. 
The remaining delegates were at a loss what to do. Without 
the support of Erie County there was no hope of success. The 
election was only three weeks off, and in that large territory 
there was no time for further conference. Under these cir¬ 
cumstances, nobody wanted the nomination. Mr. Scofield 
was suggested, but he begged to be excused from a contest 
which must certainly be bitter and probably fruitless. There¬ 
upon a delegate, somewhat under the influence of liquor, 
arose and said, “ A man who is afraid to take the helm in a 
storm is not fit to command the ship in fair weather.” Mr. 
Scofield was then nominated by acclamation. The bolters 
afterwards united with the Democrats upon a Douglas Demo¬ 
crat as their candidate, but Mr. Scofield was elected by five 
hundred majority. Thereafter he was unanimously re-nom- 


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 


13 

inated by all the counties in the district for four successive 
additional terms. 

Early in 1872, while serving his tenth year in the House, 
and when to all appearance he might have been again unani¬ 
mously nominated in his district and elected by the usual 
majority, he peremptorily declined a re-nomination. He had 
fully determined to quit public life and resume the practice 
of the law; but he was afterwards persuaded to run for the 
same office on the State ticket. It was the year in which 
Grant and Greeley were the Presidential candidates. At that 
time the election in Pennsylvania for State offices occurred 
in October, and a Governor, three Congressmen-at-large, a 
Supreme Court judge, and several other State officers were 
then to be chosen. With a view of making a good showing 
for effect upon the Presidential election, great pains were 
taken to put a ticket in the field that would represent all 
sections of the State and satisfy all factions in the party. 
For this purpose Mr. Scofield consented to become a candi¬ 
date. The ticket was elected by a majority ranging from 
thirty-five thousand to forty-seven thousand, Mr. Scofield 
standing among the highest. This gave him twelve years of 
continuous service in the House. 

During his term in Congress he served on the committees 
of Appropriations, Elections, Indian Affairs, and for six years 
as chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs. He took 
part in most of the important debates. His speeches on the 
causes and conduct of the war, on emancipation, manhood 
suffrage, reconstruction, banking, currency, and revenue were 
distinguished for clearness, condensation, and apt illustration. 


14 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Many of them had a wide newspaper circulation. But his 
political discussions were not confined to legislative bodies. 
He was a favorite with popular assemblies, and in every elec¬ 
tion campaign from 1844 to 1881, excepting a few years pre¬ 
ceding 1856, he was a prominent participant. His addresses, 
were not confined to his own Legislative and Congressional 
districts, but extended over the State, and at critical elections 
into the neighboring States of New York and Ohio, and some¬ 
times to other pivotal States. 

In 1875, after the expiration of his Congressional term, 
President Grant tendered him the appointment of Commis¬ 
sioner of Indian Affairs. Having determined to resume the 
practice of law and abandon public life altogether, he de¬ 
clined this appointment, returned to Warren, opened his office, 
and for three years gave his attention to professional and pri¬ 
vate business. At the end of that time he accepted the ap¬ 
pointment of Register of the United States Treasury, tendered 
to him, without solicitation, by President Hayes. He quali¬ 
fied as Register April 1, 1878, and held the office until May 
20, 1881, when he was appointed by President Garfield one of 
the judges of the United States Court of Claims. This court 
consists of a chief-justice and four associate judges, who hold 
their offices during life. The court sits in Washington, and 
has jurisdiction of all claims against the United States founded 
upon contracts, express or implied. 

Mr. Scofield held this position until July 29, 1891, when 
he resigned, by reason of his having served ten years upon the 
bench, and having reached the statutory age for retirement. 
His death occurred August 30, 1891, just one month later. 


SPEECHES 

OF 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 



SPEECH 

ON AN AMENDMENT OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. 


A Resolution proposing an amendment to the State Con¬ 
stitution, providing for the election of judges by the people, 
passed the Legislature of Pennsylvania in 1849. Before it 
could be voted upon by the people its approval by the suc¬ 
ceeding Legislature was necessary. 

In the selection of members for the Legislature of 1850 
great care was taken, in a quiet way, by the opponents of the 
Resolution, to elect unfriendly Representatives. Many able 
Representatives were thus chosen, among them Hon. James 
M. Porter, of Northampton County, formerly Secretary of 
War under President Tyler. 

February 15, 1850, while the Resolution was under consid¬ 
eration, the following remarks, reported in the Harrisburg 
Keystone of that date, were made by Mr. Scofield : 

Mr. Speaker,—I had not intended until recently to make 
any remarks upon this Resolution. I am induced to do so 
now, with a desire not greater to shield it from the assaults of 
its enemies than to wrest it from the defence of some of its 
friends. In the early part of the debate, some very able and 
eloquent addresses left the House in doubt as to the opinion 
entertained by those who delivered them upon the real merits 
of the question ; and others, while almost conceding the Reso¬ 
lution to be a political blunder, were content to shelter the 



18 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


votes of its supporters under the protecting aegis of the popu¬ 
lar will. One gentleman, I recollect in particular, made an 
excellent speech in favor of political progress, and concluded 
by saying he thought the judges should hold their offices for 
life! That is progress in the wrong direction. Although 
much has since been said far more to my liking, especially by 
my friend from the city [Mr. Biddle], there are still some points 
made by the opposition that no gentleman on the other side 
has seen fit to touch. To these, among other things, I beg 
leave to call the attention of the House. 

One objection strongly and repeatedly urged against the 
passage of the Resolution is, that it is in violation of the 
proviso of the tenth article of the Constitution. The proviso 
is in these words: “ If more than one amendment be sub¬ 
mitted, they shall be submitted in such manner and form that 
the people may vote for or against each amendment separately 
and distinctly.” Now we are told that there are several dis¬ 
tinct amendments in this Resolution, that should have been 
separately submitted to the people: first, will you elect asso¬ 
ciate judges? second, will you elect president judges? third, 
will you elect judges of the Supreme Court? and, fourth, 
shall they hold their offices for the prescribed five, ten, and 
fifteen years, or for some other terms ? But if this is the cor¬ 
rect view of the case, you cannot stop here. You must make 
as many distinct propositions as there are judges to be elected. 
The fallacy of this reasoning lies in supposing that the Con¬ 
stitution is to be amended in all these particulars. The classi¬ 
fication of the judges and the terms of their respective offices 
are fixed by the present Constitution. There is, substantially, 
but one proposition in the whole Resolution, and that is, 
shall the appointment of the judiciary be transferred from the 
executive to the people? You may 

sever and divide 

A hair ’twixt north and northwest side; 


SPEECHES. 


19 


but still, I apprehend, the several parts make but one whole. 
If there is no constitutional necessity for it, I, for one, am 
opposed to such a division of the Resolution. I do not want 
the judges of the County Courts elected by the people and the 
judges of the Supreme Court appointed by the Governor. I 
do not want the decisions of the people’s judges sent, for 
revision, to a tribunal whose interest it would be to render 
such decisions odious; especially to a tribunal which does not 
wait for the statute of limitations to run upon one decision 
before it reverses it with another. Give us the whole or none. 

Again, this Resolution provides that at the first election of 
the judges of the Supreme Court, in order that one new judge 
may be elected every three years, they shall determine, by lot, 
who shall take the long and who the short commissions. 
This, we are told, is a species of gambling, directly in the 
teeth of the policy of Pennsylvania, which long ago abolished 
lotteries and prohibited games of chance. The Supreme Court, 
says the gentleman from Huntingdon [Mr. Cornyn], would 
have to toss the copper to determine their places. As an ex¬ 
ample of what would take place, he exclaims, “ Heads and 
tails—heads win !” I confess I felt a little startled at first. 
I am disposed to be a moral man, and would lay temptation 
in no one’s path. And if the present judges of that high 
tribunal, whom the gentleman from Northampton has covered 
all over with encomiums, should happen to be elected, and 
from this taste of constitutional gambling should get a relish 
for the vice and take to poker, and if this should lead to 
kindred vices and they should learn to mix profanity in their 
classics and brandy in their water, I should never cease to 
regret the vote I had given. But when it occurred to me that 
the same thing was done in the United States Senate, and that 
nobody’s morals suffered thereby, I felt a little easier and 
breathed quite free again. 

This Resolution also provides that the judges, after their 


20 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


election, shall reside within their respective districts. Their 
presence is often needed to issue writs of habeas corpus, and 
settle many questions of law that are necessary to be heard in 
vacation. But, it is said, they should not live among the 
people over whom they are to preside, lest they might hear 
of their suits, imbibe their prejudices, and be governed by 
their passions. What kind of judges do you imagine the 
people will elect? Things of glass that cannot be touched 
without being shattered ? Men so frail that every breath will 
shake them? Why, sir, where should they reside? Would 
you shut them up in monasteries; make them like monks of 
the dark ages; fill their minds with scholastic learning, like 
“ roots out of dry ground,” and leave them profoundly igno¬ 
rant of the morals, education, and habits of the people to 
whom they are to administer the law ? Let them learn their 
books, to be sure, but let them also learn humanity, and that 
humanity whose oath is to be the channel of their knowledge 
and whose verdict is to inform their consciences, that humanity 
whose innocence they are to protect and whose crimes they are 
to punish. 

But, again, it is said by the gentleman from Northampton 
[Mr. Porter] that by this Resolution the judges are to be 
elected on the same day with other officers, and in his judg¬ 
ment there should be a day set apart especially for them. 
Perhaps All Saints’ Day would suit him. I have heard of 
men who were too good to be named on the same day with 
common people; but I have known very few persons that 
were not willing to be elected to almost any desirable office 
on the same day with almost anybody. It seems to me that 
the general election is the very time. The people are then 
at the polls. I do not wish an election for these officers that 
nobody but the politicians will attend. 

But gentlemen do not confine their opposition to the partic¬ 
ular provisions of this Resolution. They have the courage 


SPEECHES. 


21 


to take the bull by the horns. They are opposed to an elec¬ 
tive judiciary. We are told that we have learned, capable, 
and honest judges now, not susceptible of much improvement 
let who will have the selection of them. What, then, we are 
asked, do we gain by the change? Why, sir, I tell the gentle¬ 
men their logic is good, but their premises are bad. And I 
tell the gentlemen who go with me for the Resolution, but 
yet concede to the judiciary the high character that is claimed 
for it, that they concede the whole question ; for change, with¬ 
out improvement, is positive injury. I take the ground that 
there is great room for the bench to be improved, and that 
the people will do it. The Supreme Court has been the pro¬ 
lific theme of eulogy from the beginning of the debate. It is 
always more agreeable to praise than condemn, and it would 
be particularly grateful to my feelings to speak of that illus¬ 
trious tribunal in the stereotyped phrases of commendation. 
But, sir, I have some regard for truth. I believe, and, to ad¬ 
vocate this Resolution, I am compelled to say, that the people 
will elect a far better court. They will elect a court that can 
decide twice alike on the same question, at least. Is that done 
now? 

Look at the recent decisions on the subject of a new prom¬ 
ise under the statute of limitations. A few years ago a new 
promise made at any time was held to be good. The law was 
well settled and known, not only to the legal profession but 
to all classes of business men. But lately, when a case of this 
kind came before the Supreme Court, they held that a new 
promise made within six years was null and void; that a 
creditor who wished to give indulgence to his debtor must 
wait till the debt was outlawed before he could renew it. 
Since then their decisions have oscillated between the law as 
it was and the law as they made it. 

Look, too, at their decisions on the competency of witnesses. 
I have been only a few years at the bar, but within that time 


22 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


they have held that a party to a suit, by assigning his claim 
and paying into court all the costs that had or might accrue, 
could be a witness; then, that he could not be if the assign¬ 
ment was made after suit was brought; then, that he could 
not be if his name appeared upon record ; and, again, he was 
excluded if at any time he had held any interest in the matter, 
although he had disposed of it before suit brought and his 
name was not upon record. A recent decision indicates that 
they have faced about and are now on their back track. 

Again, sir, it was the law in Pennsylvania that a man who 
takes dishonored paper takes it subject to all the equities that 
existed between the original parties. No law was better set¬ 
tled. But within a short time this immaculate bench has 
determined to change it. And what is remarkable about the 
case is that, in the very decision which overthrows the old 
law, they acknowledge that they do not declare what the old 
law was but what they want it to be. 

Look, again, at the contradictory decisions on the power of 
the Legislature to submit questions to a vote of the people. 
At one time they declare that the license question cannot be 
submitted, and at another that a proposition to form a new 
township or remove a county-seat can. They attempt to 
justify these conflicting decisions by an argument that is at 
once a stultification of themselves and an insult to the pro¬ 
fession. 

I mention these cases not because they are solitary ones, but 
because they happen to occur to me as I speak. Had I looked 
up a brief before I arose, I should have wearied the patience 
of the House with their recital. Nor do I undertake to say 
that they have not at times improved the law; but in such im¬ 
provements they have broken over their constitutional limits 
and invaded the province of the Legislature. Their duty is 
to declare the law, not to make it. Stare decisis ought to be 
.the guiding maxim of a court. It used to be translated, 


SPEECHES. 


23 


“ stand by the decisions,” but has now come to be translated, 
stare at the decisions! I have no doubt the people will be 
able to select judges that can follow their own track. 

Again, we are told that to secure an election a man must 
attend political meetings and deliver political addresses; he 
must visit the bar-rooms and mingle with the “rabble” in 
places of popular resort; and that men of the highest order 
of ability and character will not condescend to such practices, 
and the people will be left to select demagogues for judges. 
If this should happen, I would as soon have the people’s 
demagogues as the Governor’s demijohns. The gentlemen are 
very much afraid of the people. They would not have the 
judges elected on the same day with other officers; they would 
not have them reside among the people; and now they would 
not have them mingle with the common people, whom they 
style the “ rabble,” lest the judicial ermine should be soiled. 
Sir, I have associated with the common people all my life. 
I think I understand their sentiments and purposes much 
better than gentlemen who stigmatize them as a rabble. And 
I tell the gentlemen that, when this Resolution passes, we will 
elect judges who not only can mingle freely with all classes 
of the people and submit in good nature to their jests and 
criticisms, who not only can enter a bar-room with morals 
unstained and a church with a conscience undisturbed, but 
will, each of them, when he takes his seat upon the bench, 
be every inch a judge. The Governor has no power to select 
such judges. He is compelled by the usages of his party to 
reward partisans who, from serving him with greater zeal 
than they have their country, have lost the confidence of the 
people and can get nothing from them. He must take care 
of these disabled followers. 

The gentleman from Huntingdon [Mr. Cornyn] says, if he 
were to take the stump against a candidate for the bench who 
should happen to be elected, his clients would stand no chance 


24 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


in his court. If a judge were so far to forget the duties of 
his place and lend his office to such criminal retaliation, I 
would advise the gentleman to take the stump again and 
appeal to the people. I think the thunder of their rebuke 
would soon bring the offending judge to his senses. But the 
case is imaginary; there is no such danger. Very frequently 
there is great strife in the election of justices of the peace. 
They are men who would be more easily swayed by their 
prejudices and passions than men whose training, education, 
and talents fit them for judges. Yet I never heard of a jus¬ 
tice who undertook in this way to reward his friends or punish 
his enemies. 

There was one sentiment uttered by the gentleman from 
Northampton (a gentleman ’ whose abilities have made his 
corner as conspicuous as the Speaker’s chair), a sentiment 
addressed to the Democratic part of the House, that I am 
not willing to pass unnoticed. “ If you strip the executive 
of his patronage,” said he, “ you sever the band that holds 
the Democratic party together.” Some one said, in the course 
of the debate, that we were determined to pass this Resolution 
blind. I was not blind when this remark was made. I am 
sure I opened my eyes staring wide. I fancied my ears might 
have deceived me; but I find I heard correctly. He said 
he gave this warning to the reform convention of 1838, and 
he repeated it now. That there are many selfish and spoils- 
loving men in that great brotherhood, I have no doubt. In 
the throng that followed the great author of our religion 
many were found who sought only the loaves and fishes. 
Undoubtedly many such may now be found who join our 
ranks and adopt our creed. That they would abandon their 
faith to follow their fortunes I have no doubt. But the loss 
of such men, though it lessens our numbers, cements our 
union and adds to our strength. No party in this land of 
schools and churches can be held together by the “ cohesive 


SPEECHES. 


25 


power of plunder.” John Tyler tried that experiment. And 
I am sorry to see two gentlemen who sat in his Cabinet (I 
mean the gentleman from Northampton and Mr. Calhoun, of 
South Carolina) reiterating a political maxim which that ex¬ 
periment so signally falsified. No, sir; the loss of executive 
patronage cannot dissolve, though it may purify, the Demo¬ 
cratic party. Good measures do not need the support of 
patronage, and bad ones do not deserve it. 


26 


QLENNl W. SCOFIELD. 


SPEECH 

RENOUNCING ALLEGIANCE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 


Until 1856, Mr. Scofield acted with the Democratic party. 
In July of that year a Democratic nominating convention 
assembled at Warren. Mr. Scofield had been spoken of as a 
possible candidate for State Senator. At the request of several 
delegates, he attended the convention, and, being there inter¬ 
rogated as to his opinions on the all-absorbing question of 
slavery extension, made the following answer: 

Gentlemen of the Convention, —I am opposed to the 
further extension of slavery, and in favor of excluding it by 
law from all the Territories of the United States. Freemen, 
to the exclusion of slaves, should be allowed to make their 
homes on the banks of the Kansas. 

While I am in favor of popular sovereignty in its broadest 
sense, I do not think this principle requires the removal of 
all obstacles to the unlimited spread of slavery. It did not 
demand the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. That bar¬ 
rier to the extension of slavery was as old as the Constitution 
itself. Thomas Jefferson wrote it. It was approved by the 
old Congress in 1784, and again in 1787. It was adopted by 
Congress in 1789, and Washington signed the bill. * It was 
re-enacted by Congress in 1802, and Jefferson approved and 
signed the re-enactment. In 1816 it was twice approved by 



SPEECHES. 


27 


Congress and each time endorsed by Madison. In various 
Territorial bills, it was subsequently sanctioned by Monroe, 
Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk. The same principle had 
been repeatedly endorsed by almost every Democratic states¬ 
man in the country, including Buchanan, Cass, and Douglas. 
It was reserved for the present administration to discover that 
the Constitution would allow no obstacles to be laid in the 
way of slavery extension ; that the institution of human bond¬ 
age, arrogant with its own power and pampered with Federal 
patronage, should be allowed, unchecked and unmolested, to 
spread its blighting curse over all the Western territory. 
This Compromise was not repealed because it was unconstitu¬ 
tional ; for its constitutionality had been sanctioned by almost 
every branch of the Federal courts, by every Democratic ad¬ 
ministration, and by very many of its violators themselves. 
It was repealed because it consecrated the plains and valleys 
of Kansas to freemen; because, with the Compromise stand¬ 
ing on the statute-book, they could not Africanize them, and 
thus exclude Northern white men from the land of mild 
climates and rich soils. 

The violators of that sacred compact have ever since taken 
good care that no other obstacles should oppose the march of 
this cruel institution into Kansas. Reeder stood, like a Wilmot 
proviso, in its way, and, under the pretence that he had pur¬ 
chased lands instead of negroes, he was removed from power, 
indicted as a traitor in a Federal court, and hunted from the 
Territory by a Missouri mob, with Federal backing. Lane 
stood in the way. He had been a standard-bearer in the 
Democratic party and more than once led the Democracy to 
victory in his native State. He had been a soldier and stood 
by the side of General Taylor in the fearful struggle at Buena 
Vista; but he, too, has been indicted as a traitor in a Federal 
court, and is to be tried by a packed jury and, if possible, 
convicted and hung. There were some free presses in Kansas, 


28 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


and they were another obstacle to the ingress of slavery; but 
they, too, were indicted as nuisances in a Federal court, the 
buildings demolished, and the offending type thrown into the 
river. Thus every obstacle to the Africanization of Kansas, 
one by one, has been removed. 

But this is not all. On the day when the settlers were to 
elect a Legislature on the theory of popular sovereignty, a 
pro-slavery army marched into the Territory, took possession 
of the polls, and elected whom they pleased. This pretended 
Legislature assembled, established slavery in Kansas, and 
fortified it with the most infamous code of laws that ever 
disgraced a civilized State. To give greater permanency to 
this bloody code, they hedged in the elective franchise with 
such unconscionable oaths that no honest white man can vote. 
A Federal Governor, appointed against the wishes of three- 
fourths of the settlers, enforces these laws in a Federal court 
and with a Federal army, while the Governor whom the people 
chose is indicted as a traitor and now lies in a Federal prison. 
These cruel proceedings are not only permitted but were in¬ 
cited and steadily encouraged by the Democratic administra¬ 
tion at Washington, for the sole purpose of forcing slavery 
upon the freedom-loving people of that Territory. This is 
not the popular sovereignty that I endorse. 

These are my sentiments, the earnest convictions of my 
judgment. In the coming elections I intend my vote shall 
represent my principles. For this reason I do not desire and 
could not accept a Democratic nomination. 

Note. —Mr. Scofield subsequently became the Free-Soil 
candidate for Senator, and in a district heretofore largely 
Democratic was elected by a majority of twelve hundred 
votes. 


SPEECHES. 


29 


SPEECH 

# 

IN FAVOR OF ANTISLAVERY MEN HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE. 


In 1857, Governor Pollock, who had been elected in 1854, 
by a combination of Whig and Know-Nothing votes, nomi¬ 
nated a prominent clergyman, with pro-slavery proclivities, 
for State Librarian. Mr. Scofield opposed his confirmation 
in the following speech: 

Mr. Speaker, —The slave interest of this country has 
marked out its course, and for many years has pursued it 
with a steadiness and courage that the friends of freedom 
ought to imitate. The introduction of a black servile race 
into the Territories of the West, to the exclusion, so far, of 
white laboring freemen; the seizure and annexation of Cuba, 
for the sake of its negroes and negro representation in the 
national counsels; the conquest, Africanization, and final an¬ 
nexation of portions of the Mexican and Central American 
States, are the leading ends at which, for the present, the slave 
power directs its extraordinary energies. 

To prosecute these schemes with greater success, it has issued 
its injunction of silence. Free discussion is the friend of right 
and the foe of wrong, and therefore the Cotton King has laid 
his embargo upon it. The decree has been made and put upon 
the records of the country that upon the subject of slavery 
there shall be no agitation, either in Congress or out of it. 



30 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Newspapers may discuss tariffs, temperance, books, and schools, 
but the great institution, once called peculiar but now bap¬ 
tized national, like the sacred dead, must be named only to be 
praised. Upon this subject, too, the pulpit must be silent. 
It may search the world for other crimes to condemn. It 
may denounce the idolatry of India, the polygamy of the 
Turk, the licentiousness of France, or the dogmas of Rome; 
but the great home sin must be allowed to exist and expand 
uncondemned. 

The enforcement of this decree within the limits of the 
fifteen States over which the dark curse hangs is easy. The 
press, the pulpit, and the stump belong to the oligarchs. The 
interest of the laboring white man is represented by neither. 
The disgraceful statutes against discussion are scarcely needed 
there. The man who speaks or writes for the white laborer 
is mobbed or murdered. But in the sixteen white States this 
anti republican decree can only be enforced by proscribing its 
opponents. The Federal arm, guided by the slave power, is, 
therefore, put forth to crush out discussion. No man disloyal 
to this power, be his love of the country and the Constitution, 
his integrity and talents, what they may, can hold an office, 
high or low, under the general government. Look over the 
long columns of the Blue-Book, from cover to cover, and you 
will not find the name of one single outspoken antislavery 
man on its pages. A disunionist and a Jesuit may sit in the 
same cabinet. A filibuster may represent us abroad, and a 
hoary polygamist govern a Territory at home. He who seeks 
to embroil other countries, he who seeks to dismember our 
own, he who corrupts our simple faith with the fallacies of 
Rome, and he who introduces the pollution of the harem for 
the purity of family and home, has his name written in the 
Blue-Book; and all sleep sweetly in the same political bed. 
Those who hold to the doctrines of Jefferson and utter them, 
despite the Cincinnati decree, are alone proscribed. 


SPEECHES. 


31 


The same proscription controls the patronage of this Com¬ 
monwealth wherever the allies of the slave aristocracy have 
power. From all the offices along the lines of your public 
works, and from all the departments around this Capitol, where 
the slave power can reach, freedom-loving men are excluded. 

The same proscriptive influence bears equally strong upon 
the pulpit and all other public positions. Russian silence is 
not only commended but commanded to all. The minister of 
the Gospel who exposes the sins of slavery as he does other 
sins is made to know that the penalty of fidelity to his calling 
is a thinned congregation and a diminished salary. Within a 
few months a clergyman, distinguished alike for his purity, 
learning, and eloquence, was found guilty of violating the 
Cincinnati decree in the cotton-crushed metropolis of our good 
old Commonwealth, and was driven from his pulpit like a 
heretic. In good time, no doubt, his place will be occupied 
by some man who believes, with Falstaff, that paying discre¬ 
tion is the better part of Christian valor; and who, avoiding 
all practical remarks, will magnify the exceeding “ sinfulness 
of sin,” or wander back to early ages, and thunder hell after 
antediluvian sinners, who, according to orthodox teaching, 
were long since cast into that sulphurous pit. Hereafter that 
pulpit will know no higher law than that which bids us hunt 
down, refetter, and return to cruel and unpaid toil the escaped 
Christian bondman. 

We are told that this nominee has taken good care of the 
books ; that he has neither stolen them nor permitted others 
to steal them. That is commendable. Any honest man would 
have done the same. 1 prefer no charge against him. I place 
my vote on higher grounds. I would give this office, and all 
others that I could control, to the proscribed class, until a fair 
proportion, according to their numbers, talents, and patriotism, 
were called into the public service. Many competent persons 
of this class desire this place. There was another clergyman 


32 


GLENNl W. SCOFIELD. 


who would have accepted it. He was an accomplished scholar, 
but not more distinguished for his learning than for his piety 
and general worth. But he had violated the Cincinnati decree. 
In denouncing the sins of the world, he did not remember to 
forget the traffic in the live bodies and souls of men. When 
he remembered the oppressed of other lands, he did not forget 
the fettered humanity of his own. For this he is proscribed. 
Not so his successful rival. He has been more discreet. He 
does not pain the sensitive ear of slave-breeding chivalry with 
untimely remarks on their unchristian trade. It is doubtless 
true, as his supporters now assert, that thirty years ago, with 
the unselfish enthusiasm of youth, he pointed out the wrong 
and sin of slavery ; but it is equally true that this enthusiasm 
is now chilled by the cautious and politic wisdom of age. He 
respects the Cincinnati decree. He is on the favored list. If 
he wants office, the whole slave-directed patronage of the 
country is on his side. His proscribed rivals must look to us 
alone. I must vote to proscribe proscription, and therefore 
against confirmation. 


SPEECHES. 


33 


SPEECH t 

ON THE RELIGIOUS DISABILITY OF WITNESSES. 


In 1858 the following bill was pending in the Legislature 
of Pennsylvania: 

Be it enacted, etc., That no person shall be held incompetent to give 
testimony on account of his religious belief, but evidence thereof may 
be given as heretofore to affect his credibility. 

When this bill was under consideration in the Senate, Mr. 
Scofield said: 

Mr. Speaker, —The Supreme Court of this State, in Cub- 
bison vs. McCreary (2 Watts & Sergeant, 262), has declared 
the government standard for religious faith. It is belief in 
the future punishm^flt^ifiiiird direct interposition of 

God. No person whpg$rpr^^Jkj^^anything below this is 
allowed to testify in a court of justice. No matter how high 
the character of the for i$Qiih, honesty, or morality; 

no matter how sound his judgment or correct his opinions on 
other subjects; no matter how strongly the public interest 
demands his evidence, to shield the innocent or expose the 
guilty; if, in the wilderness of creeds, he has had the mis¬ 
fortune to adopt a sentiment on the subject of religion less 
orthodox than the legal standard, he cannot testify. The rule 
makes no exceptions. It does not exclude a common liar, nor 
a common drunkard, nor an unsentenced criminal, however 



34 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


dark his crime. There is no depth in vice, if the required 
creed is professed,That excludes a witness; no height in virtue, 
if that creed is doubted, that admits him. 

Although this is the law, it has never received the sanction 
of the Pennsylvania Legislature, nor, so far as I know, the 
abstract approval of a Pennsylvania court. It came to us 
from abroad, ready made. The country of its origin is widely 
separated from ours, but by no greater space than is the spirit 
and theory of this rule from the spirit and theory of our insti¬ 
tutions. It originated when religion was propagated by the 
dungeon and rack, and comes down to us through an age in 
which heretics were burned and witches hung. It has been 
suffered to linger in the unwritten law of tolerant America, 
long after these harsher but kindred modes of conversion have 
been condemned and abandoned. 

Judges, lawyers, and litigants have alike experienced the 
great inconvenience of this rule. It often closes the lips of a 
most credible witness, when private interest and public safety 
demand that they should be opened. Men who have witnessed 
the commission of great crimes, or who have been chosen to 
remember important private contracts, are often driven from 
the witness-stand by this proscriptive and useless law. When 
the unsworn word of such men would not be questioned out¬ 
side the court-house, their solemn affirmation could not be 
heard within it. Crime must go unpunished here, because 
the witness of it believes it will hereafter. A suitor must be 
sent to another world for justice, because his witness believes 
he should receive it in this. 

The objections urged against the passage of this bill may 
be arranged under three heads. I will give a word of reply 
to each. 

First, it is said that the evidence of a witness who enter¬ 
tains unsound sentiments on the subject of future punishment 
is not entitled to full credit. The bill itself is an answer to 


SPEECHES. 


35 


this objection. It does not propose to put the oath of a sceptic 
on a par with that of a believer in the Christian religion. No 
doubt, the fear of future punishment and the hope of future 
reward strengthen all virtue in the hearts of men. No doubt, 
the oath of a witness who believes that all his acts are noted 
for future judgment should be taken with greater confidence 
than that of one who expects his sin will be followed only by 
the uncertain tribunals of earth. The bill, therefore, provides 
that, while the witness shall be heard, his unbelief may be 
proved. His evidence shall go to the jury, but it may be dis¬ 
paraged by the accompanying proof of his erring creed. Thus 
the credibility and not the competency of the witness is affected 
by his mistaken faith. A practical jury can give the evidence 
such weight as it deserves. 

Second, it is said that the existing disability has a tendency 
to restrain the expression of sceptical opinion. In point of 
fact, this cannot be true to any considerable extent. The ex¬ 
istence of such a disability is but little known, and, when 
known, but little cared for, by those whom it was designed to 
influence. It is not a rule of every day’s practice. It is 
brought up only when no other stratagem of the law will 
avail to suppress the truth. It then becomes known to a few 
attendants of a particular suit only after it is too late to have 
the supposed restraining influence, but just in time to prevent 
the disclosure of important truth. But suppose it had the 
effect to the fullest extent claimed, is it perfectly certain that 
the suppression of erroneous sentiment through legal com¬ 
pulsion is a desirable thing ? Disabilities and penalties may 
produce acquiescence, but conversion, never. It changes an 
infidel into a hypocrite; or, rather, it superadds the sin of 
hypocrisy to that of infidelity. Would society or religion 
profit by the change ? A wolf in sheep’s clothing is the more 
dangerous from his harmless exterior. There is not much 
danger from the “ great father of lies” himself, so long as he 


36 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


goes about like a “ roaring lion.” It is when he assumes the 
guise of the serpent that his mission of evil to the human race 
is most successful. In this disguise error was first preached in 
Eden, and in this disguise it is most successfully preached still. 

The third and last objection is rather one of form than 
of substance. By the oath usually administered, the witness 
calls upon God to note his testimony and hold him account¬ 
able for its falsity at the “ great day.” Now, it is said that, 
if you so far relax the rule as to permit persons to testify who 
do not believe there will be a “ great day,” in which God will 
distribute rewards and punishments according to the deeds 
done in the body, the present form of oath will not be appro¬ 
priate. I thought we were discussing a principle,—the pro¬ 
priety of modifying a rule of evidence. I thought we were 
considering whether a little change of this rule might not 
enable courts of justice to elicit some truth now suppressed, 
and, if so, whether it could possibly encourage infidelity. But 
it seems the opponents of the bill are contending for the sanc¬ 
tity of a form. I have been told that when the bill to abolish 
imprisonment for debt was under discussion in these halls, and 
when the arguments against that humane measure had been 
successfully replied to by its friends, an old justice of the peace 
took the floor in opposition. He said the form of an execu¬ 
tion concluded, “for want of goods and chattels, take the 
body.” If the non-imprisonment bill should become a law, 
this old form would be destroyed; you could no longer say, 
“ take the body.” He implored the House to defeat the bill, 
not because it was wrong in principle, but for the sake of the 
concluding line in the blank execution. So it is now. When 
the rule of exclusion cannot be defended on principle, we are 
asked to stand by it for the sake of the form. Fortunately, 
we have another form of oath almost as old in Pennsylvania 
as this. It is a simple affirmation to tell the truth. It is 
familiar to the courts, is now used by many conscientious and 


SPEECHES. 


37 


religious witnesses, and has attached to it the same legal pen¬ 
alties for its violation. 

But aside from the practical inconvenience of this common- 
law rule, it is repugnant to the great principle of American 
toleration. The first article in the amendments of the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States declares that “ Congress shall make 
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting 
the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech 
or of the press.” The Constitution of Pennsylvania provides 
“ that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control 
or interfere with the rights of conscience.” The right of 
every man to think what he pleases, and utter what he thinks, 
free from penalties and disabilities of every kind, trusting to 
truth and reason to triumph, in an open contest, over error 
and wrong, is the most valuable of all our liberties. It is a 
great constitutional right. This more than anything else dis¬ 
tinguishes this country from countries controlled by arbitrary 
power. No despot imposes physical restraints upon his sub¬ 
jects. He allows them to trade, travel, labor, and gratify 
their animal wants, with perfect freedom. It is the right to 
think and utter their thoughts that is denied them. Under 
such government no unlicensed lip or uncensored press can be 
heard. The minds, not the limbs, are manacled. The insur¬ 
gent conscience and the rebel thought alone wear the imperial 
chain. The very persons who insist most upon enforcing this 
disability upon a portion of their fellow-citizens here, if resi¬ 
dents of such other countries, would themselves be subject to 
still greater disabilities, under a similar mistaken zeal for 
some established religion. 

In this country we have endeavored to unfetter the con¬ 
science. We have agreed that there should be no government 
church ; no creed should be established, but all allowed. We 
have incorporated that principle in our Constitution, both 
State and national. Under its protection every man satisfies 


38 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


his conscience, in the great American temple, in his own way. 
Religion wins its converts- only by its excellence and truth. 
The church claims no involuntary tribute and presses no un¬ 
willing worshipper to her altar. Yet in no country has the 
Christian religion taken such strong hold of the minds and 
hearts of the people. The church needs no law forbidding 
men to be atheists and deserves none compelling them to be 
hypocrites. 


SPEECHES. 


39 


SPEECH 

ON THE EXEMPTION OF THE HOMESTEAD FROM SALE FOR DEBT. 


In 1859 a bill was pending in the Senate of Pennsylvania 
providing for the exemption from execution of property, to 
be selected by the debtor, to the value of three hundred 
dollars. Mr. Scofield moved an amendment, providing that 
the dwelling-house of the debtor, not exceeding five hundred 
dollars in value, should also be exempt, and in support of it 
made the following remarks: 

Mr. Speaker, —The policy of exemption, so far as it now 
goes, is to leave to the debtor the absolute necessaries of life. 
The same policy should, certainly, spare the family roof. 
Many articles exempted under the old law might possibly 
be dispensed with ; but a dwelling-house of some kind must 
be had, at all events. If the policy of any exemption is well 
founded, the poor man’s home, which comes clearly within its 
reason and spirit, should certainly be free. But while the 
principle, upon which all exemption laws rest, would leave, 
to an unfortunate family, a small habitation, as an object of 
first necessity, there are some reasons in favor of the measure 
that do not apply to any other species of property. A 
dwelling-house is always accommodated to the size, arranged 
and ornamented to the taste, of a particular family. In this 
respect it is unlike a store, shop, or tavern. These are planned, 



40 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


not to suit a particular tradesman, but a particular trade, and 
are as suitable for one person carrying on such trade as 
another. Experience shows that this kind of building will 
generally sell for more than cost, while a dwelling-house is 
often sold at a ruinous sacrifice. The family residence, like 
family portraits, is far more valuable to the owner than to 
any one else, and when forced to sale, though the purchaser 
may not be enriched, the unfortunate debtor is left poor 
indeed. It is more or less a sale of all the attachments and 
affections which the whole household cherish for their old 
haunts and home. It has been to them not only a shelter but 
a depository of many cherished associations. The tree they 
have planted, whose germination and growth they have watched 
and watered, has to them an ideal value. If you drive them 
from it, you deprive them not only of its shade but the 
mental satisfaction with which they regard it as the product 
of their care. The vine that spreads over the hovel its pro¬ 
tecting and beautifying green clings not more closely to its 
rude support than do the affections of the child it shelters to 
the objects of its first familiarity. This home attachment 
never chills. The . child, grown to manhood, and wandering 
where he may in new pathways of life, will pause, even in 
the busiest moments of ambitious prime, and turn a pensive 
thought or reverent step to this first Mecca of the mind. These 
sentiments exist in the coarsest heart; and I submit to the 
Senate whether it is good policy, to say nothing of humanity, 
to turn these amiable traits in the human character to articles 
of merchandise. 

In opposition to this measure, it is said, we cannot build 
men houses by legislation. No, sir, but we can do much to 
encourage their acquisition. Place the family residence be¬ 
yond the reach of chicane or misfortune, and you stimulate 
the idle and thriftless to habits of labor and economy. The 
present proverbial uncertainty of fortune is a great discour- 


SPEECHES. 


41 


agement of human exertion. Now, industry knows not whose 
overgrown estate its acquisitions may finally swell. The hand 
that plants a tree knows not what unbidden stranger may 
enjoy its shade. The household whose united efforts might 
earn a common home knows not how soon simplicity or mis¬ 
management in its legal control may expose it to the exactions 
of credit or of craft. 

Cannot give poor men homes by legislation ! Sir, it is by 
a long course of adverse legislation that the poor are deprived 
of their portion of the earth. It is because the books over¬ 
flow with legislation that authorizes and encourages land 
monopoly that the million has not a place to rest the sole of 
his foot nor a turf to cover his grave, except by leave of “ my 
lord.” There is space enough in the world for all, and plenty 
to spare. Naturally, we are but tenants in common on its 
surface. Naturally, each person has an equal right with his 
brother to a spot on which to pitch his tent and erect an altar,— 
to ground in which to plant and gather his harvest during life, 
—and in whose familiar dust his ashes may sleep when life’s 
fitful fever is over. It is because this natural right has been 
legislated away; because a single man is authorized by law 
to draw an imaginary line around whole leagues of land and 
hold it away from the world, that the child of want is com¬ 
pelled to “ beg his lordly fellow-worm to give him leave to 
toil.” 

We have twenty-four millions of population, and yet, the 
census informs us, that less than one and a half millions have 
any interest in the soil. Except what still belongs to the 
government, this million and a half have monopolized the 
whole of this magnificent country. Between the Atlantic and 
Pacific there is not a single foot of ground upon which a 
poor man may rest and say “it is mine.” Over every hill 
and valley, prairie and plain, the aegis of ownership has long 
since been spread. In some degree this unnatural state of 

4 


42 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


things is the result of legislation, and in some small degree 
liberal homestead exemptions will correct it. 

Again, the State has an interest, aside from that of the 
debtor, in the enlargement of the number of freeholders within 
her limits. Bound, by interest, to the soil they cultivate, they 
become the natural supporters of the government which confers 
and protects their titles. The land-owner, unlike the capitalist, 
cannot fly with his property, nor change it with the shifting 
government and laws. His safety lies in the stability of law 
and good order in society. 

The Commonwealth should not allow her humblest citizen 
to be driven to extreme poverty by the remorselessness of 
creditors. God prescribed limits to the persecution of his 
servant, and the Commonwealth should prescribe the line 
beyond which the pursuit of her honest poor should cease. 

Again, we are told that the rights of creditors should be 
respected. Very true, but what wrong is done to creditors by 
the proposed exemption? It is prospective in its character. 
No contract can be affected by it, except those made after its 
passage. Suppose, at the time a credit is given, it is stipulated 
by the parties that, in case of failure in payment, the creditor 
should have no lien upon the dwelling-house of the debtor, 
would any one say that upon the happening of the contingency 
provided for the creditor should be allowed to violate his 
contract and drive his unfortunate debtor into the street ? I 
presume not. Yet parties contract in view of the existing 
laws of the State, and in legal contemplation such laws are 
as much a part of the contract as if drawn up at length and 
inserted in it. Will it be claimed that the creditor may vio¬ 
late his implied any more than his express contract ? If not, 
in what respect is he injured? So far from being injured, the 
general class of creditors would be benefited. There is no 
wisdom in the law that strips the failing debtor at once. For, 
from that time, however numerous or honest his debts, he pays 


SPEECHES. 


43 


no more. Driven from his fireside and compelled to seek a 
home in new and changing places, his ambition and energy 
are gone. His lessened earnings are absorbed in rents, if not 
wasted in dissipation. The inheritor of suffering knows not 
that there is a cup of happiness he never tasted. Man, 
schooled to want, may bear its hardships with a callous heart; 
but failing affluence and forced insolvency wear a heavier 
chain. The child always homeless may forget his sorrows 
on the pillow of occasional charity, but one cast upon the 
world by fresh misfortune rarely finds an easy pillow till he 
rests at last on the bosom of mother earth. Real want and 
fancied shame pursue him to the end. Let the homestead, 
unless one of fraudulent extravagance, be held sacred by the 
law. Let no servant of exacting credit come within its gates. 
Let it be made what the law now erroneously declares it, the 
owner’s castle. 


44 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


SPEECH 

ON THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 


In February, 1864, the United States House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, in Committee of the Whole, under the rule for 
five-minute speeches, took up for consideration the Conscrip¬ 
tion Bill, which provided, among other things, for the enlist¬ 
ment of colored men, both bond and free. 

This provision provoked a great deal of opposition, par¬ 
ticularly from Representatives of the border slave-holding 
States, many of whom were earnestly in favor of the war 
but strongly opposed to meddling with slavery. 

Brutus J. Clay, a Representative from Kentucky, held 
these views, and had several times pressed them upon the 
attention of the committee. To him Mr. Scofield replied as 
follows: 

Mr. Chairman, —I wish to commend to the gentleman 
from Kentucky—I mean the one who bears the name most 
honored in that State [Mr. Clay]—the philosophy of Macbeth. 
We are in the midst of emancipation,— 

“ Stept in so far that, should we wade no more, 

Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” 

Suppose that slavery is the defensible institution its friends 
claim it to be, suppose even that it is a beneficent institution, 



SPEECHES. 


45 


there will come a time perhaps, in the increasing pressure for 
emancipation by a large portion of the American people, when 
it will become those most interested in negro ownership to 
consider whether restoration is not more difficult, more ex¬ 
pensive, and more dangerous even, than total abolition. I 
submit to my friend that that time has already come. If 
abolition were madness at one time, it may become good sense 
and sanity at another. Sometimes it is wisdom to pursue a 
path upon whose unknown and threatening dangers it were 
folly to enter. Emancipation has already made considerable 
progress. Shall we go forward or return? We are near the 
middle of the stream; which shore is nearest and safest? 

I have always understood, the slave-holders themselves being 
witnesses and judges, that there were two conditions necessary 
to the existence of slavery on this continent,—to wit, non¬ 
instruction to the slave and non-discussion by the white man 
in localities where it exists. These are acknowledged to be 
the two safeguards of slavery by the statutes of every slave 
State, whereby ignorance is commanded to the slave and silence 
to the white man, with penalties which seem to us at the North 
to be unnecessarily severe. If anywhere the law is at fault 
in enforcing these conditions, the mob supplies the deficiency. 

I do not mention these things now to complain of them, 
but only as an evidence of the depth and sincerity of the belief 
of the slave-holders that these two conditions are necessary to 
the safety and prosperity of the institution. 

These safeguards have been wonderfully broken down by 
the necessities and opportunities of the war. Commencing 
with the District of Columbia, following around the eastern 
and southern coast, up the Mississippi, and all along the 
northern borders, slavery is, even now, surrounded by a cor¬ 
don of missionary schools for the black man. In these schools 
the slaves of all ages are taught not only what can be learned 
from books and maps, but also that they are, and of right 


46 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


ought to be, free; made free by the laws of God, the Decla¬ 
ration of Independence, and the President’s Proclamation; 
and that it is a duty they owe to God, to the fathers, and to 
the President to maintain that freedom. I am not now speak- 
ing to justify or condemn these schools. Call it fanaticism, 
madness, or incendiarism, as you like. I speak only of the 
fact. 

But there is more,—better or worse, as you please: one 
hundred thousand of these slaves are now in the Union army, 
and one hundred thousand more will be there by spring. The 
army is a great school in which to learn and to unlearn: to 
unlearn submission and docility to their master, and to learn 
the value of freedom and the power of association and organ¬ 
ization to defend it. When God shall please again to bless 
this land with peace, shall the negro lay aside his military 
belt and resume the master’s collar ? If the country would 
allow it, the master would not. He would as soon introduce 
to his plantation a person charged with some fatal infection 
as his former .slave, now imbued with a foretaste of freedom, 
educated to read and write, familiar with the antislavery 
sentiments of the North, and inspired by his soldier life with 
the self-respect and courage of a freeman. The master might 
covet his industry, but he could not abide his demoralization. 

The other safeguard of slavery, the silence of the white 
man, is broken also. Discussion has opened in all the border 
States, and can never again be hushed. 

(Here, the five minutes having expired, the hammer fell.) 


SPEECHES. 


47 


SPEECH 

ON THE PROPOSED DIVISION OF THE REPUBLIC. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , February 24 , 1864 . 


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state 
of the Union, Mr. Scofield said: 

Mr. Chairman, —My colleague [Mr. Dawson] who ad¬ 
dressed the House this morning, informed us that it was just 
eight years since he had spoken here before. I knew that, 
not because I have followed his personal history, but I knew 
it by the tenor of his speech. He must have turned down 
a leaf just eight years ago, and begun to-day where he left 
off then. The speech might have been appropriately made 
during the earlier years of the administration of General 
Pierce. I wish to remind him that the question involved in 
the struggle now furnishing so many sad pages for history is 
a question of division : “ Shall the great republic be divided 
into two small ones ?” That is the question now before the 
country. Those who took the affirmative of this question in 
the first place took up arms with which to defend it. They 
knew they could not maintain it in debate. They knew they 
could never satisfy the American people that a government 
always so tender of the interests of its poorest citizen, and so 
strong to defend him, could be as useful when divided into 
two nationalities not more than half as strong, territorially 




48 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


ill-shaped, and politically hostile. They did not try, but 
haughtily said to the country,— 

“ Think of division as thou wilt, 

We try the question hilt to hilt.” 

They gave but one reason for it. They said that some 
people—I believe they said a great many people—had spoken 
unkindly of their system of labor. That was all. They did 
not state it in that concise form; but, when all their com¬ 
plaints and reasons are analyzed, they amount to that and 
nothing more. I defy any gentleman to point out any other 
reason given by them for the position taken. But do not 
misunderstand me. I do not mean to say that so large a 
number of gentlemen, talented as we know, honest as we 
formerly thought, were moved to espouse disunion from a 
trivial motive. Their motive was as I have stated it to be; 
but, in my judgment, it was very far from being a trivial 
one. They wished to preserve that system of labor. Why ? 
Because they had two billion dollars in it. They had more 
than that, for I believe they were never distinguished as an 
avaricious people. Their aristocracy, family pride, political 
power (a great item), their habits of life, and, what is as 
valuable to them as anything else, their cherished vices, ease, 
and idleness, all were in it. Of course they wanted to pre¬ 
serve it. They knew, however, that the institution was founded 
in wrong, and could not bear to be talked against. In a free 
forum it must go under. An iceberg breaking away from the 
pole and floating down into warmer latitudes gradually loses 
its frigidity, and dissolves in the warmer elements around it. 
So slavery, originating in the barbaric periods of the world, 
and floating down to this benigner age, was beginning to melt 
away in the warm breath of debate. To preserve slavery, 
therefore, debate must cease, or slavery be taken out of hearing. 


SPEECHES. 


49 


Silence or secession seemed their only alternative. When 
silence could not be obtained they chose secession. 

I know some other things were said. I know they said 
that the North would not turn out, with constitutional alac¬ 
rity, to catch and return their fugitive bondmen; but these, 
like other similar complaints, were rather incidents of the 
main trouble than original causes of dissatisfaction. They 
were thrown out only to catch the minnows found in the great 
ocean of Northern politics. The great leaders cared nothing 
for this small percentage of loss, smaller than in many other 
kinds of investment. They cared nothing for the few leaves 
that were, here and there, detached and lost in the ordinary 
breeze; it was the little streams of thought that were slowly 
washing the soil away from the root of the tree that alarmed 
them. Therefore, while we of the North talked about wall¬ 
ing slavery in, lest freedom should be contaminated, they were 
considering how to wall freedom out, that slavery might re¬ 
main pure. They decided upon disunion. They stated their 
purpose clearly, and took a name that indicated it honestly. 
They called themselves disunionists. They even pointed out 
the line where the surveyor should blaze the trees, and sepa¬ 
rate the free from the slave republic. They kindly gave to 
the twenty or thirty millions of unmixed white population 
the sterile hills of New England, the bleak shores of the 
lakes, and the head-streams and flat-boat navigation of the 
Mississippi. The body of the Mississippi, with its stream 
of commercial wealth, unfailing as its own waters, the long 
Atlantic and Gulf coast, the vast country lying below Penn¬ 
sylvania, Ohio, and Iowa, and stretching westward without 
limit, embracing the soft climate and warm soil of the South, 
—all this, said they, we will take for the master and his slave. 

Thus the issue was made up on the one side. There was 
no alternative left for the other. Those opposed to division 
were compelled—you will remember how unwillingly—to 


50 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


take up arms and submit the cause of the Union to the 
chances of battle. They organized under the appropriate 
name of the Union party. The old flag was hoisted, the 
long roll beaten, and the opponents of division everywhere 
called upon to “fall in.” Straightway, then, began some to 
make excuses. Says one, “ I am opposed to division; but 
coercion is unconstitutional; I pray you have me excused.” 
James Buchanan said that in his last annual message. Says 
another, “ I am opposed to division, and I think coercion is 
constitutional, but I believe it is impracticable. I think the 
United States is not strong enough to put down a rebellion so 
extensive, and led by men of so much ability, pride, and 
courage. I cannot, therefore, join you to try. I pray you 
have me excused.” Says a third, “ I am opposed to division, 
and I believe that coercion is both constitutional and practi¬ 
cable ; but there is an easier and better way: you can com¬ 
promise. They only ask you to cease talking against slavery, 
and if you will not agree to do that, I, too, shall ask to be 
excused.” And so these three classes, each for a different 
reason, moved off by themselves, and formed the nucleus of 
what subsequently became a great party of neutrality, observa¬ 
tion, and criticism. It was said the other day, by the gentle¬ 
man from Kentucky [Mr. Smith], that there were but two 
parties in this country, patriots and traitors. I beg leave to 
differ from my friend. I think there are three, patriots, 
traitors, and neutrals. But I will not quarrel with him if he 
should say, as I think a high-spirited Kentuckian would, that 
he had more admiration for the mad courage of treason than 
for the mean cowardice of neutrality. 

Let us pause here to answer the question sometimes yet 
asked, “ Why did you not compromise ? If they only wanted 
you to agree to cease talking about their system of labor, why 
did you not agree?” It was not lack of dough : we had, I 
am ashamed to acknowledge, dough enough to make a whole 


SPEECHES. 


51 


oven-full of compromises. It was not because the Unionists 
were not pliant, but because the disunion leaders were not 
fools. They knew that a contract for silence could never be 
enforced, unless your republican government was converted 
into an absolute monarchy. What is a republic, except the 
right to think and to express your thoughts by your voice 
and your vote ? These leaders knew that talk would go on 
in spite of contract, and therefore they did not ask and would 
not accept your worthless parchment. They had tried it. They 
had the Atherton gag and the Democratic and Whig resolu¬ 
tions of 1852, forbidding discussion, and the whole power of 
the Pierce and Buchanan administrations to enforce their 
views. Former administrations, although much devoted to 
the interests of slavery, found time to attend to some other 
matters. Polk, I think it was, explored the “ Dead Sea” of 
the Old World, and Fillmore sounded the depths of a deader 
sea at home for himself and his party; but Pierce and 
Buchanan devoted themselves entirely to this single purpose. 
They put on the master’s collar and wore it as a thing of 
honor, and never seemed prouder than when they saw their 
Southern friends spelling out the inscription, “ This is Gurth, 
the bondman of Cedric the Saxon.” These influences were 
ably wielded by an experienced corps of slave Representatives 
in these halls and around this Capitol. They were men that 
combined the opposite qualities of gentleness and severity, so 
fitting to a leader. They knew how to win the bold and 
overawe the timid. They were gentlemen among bullies and 
bullies among gentlemen. But with all these powers com¬ 
bined, they could not close the mouth—will it please you any 
better if I say fanatical mouth?—of Wendell Phillips alone. 
And so they spurned your too pliant offer. 

Three years have passed,—years fraught, as it seems to us 
at a distance, with great ruin to the South, with loss and heavy 
sorrow, as we know, to the North. How stand the three par- 


52 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


ties now ? The disunion emblem is still upborne, less firmly 
than at first; and the area on which its hateful shadow falls 
is two-thirds less than in the beginning. Still it flies its 
signal word—“ division.” All the proclamations and mes¬ 
sages of Davis, his governors and generals, all the laws and 
resolutions of his Congress and State Legislatures talk of 
nothing, ask for nothing but division. Will the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Wood], who talks to us so much about 
peace, take notice that in all those official documents, if they 
can be called official, division is the only aim and end proposed ? 

How stands the Union party? Well, sir, our flag, I be¬ 
lieve, is still floating, held more firmly than in the beginning, 
sustained by the courage—no, sir, that is not the word I mean, 
exactly; by the patriotism of the American people—and that 
is not the word I want to express my particular shade of 
meaning; it is upheld, I believe, by a stronger sentiment than 
courage or patriotism,—by the sense of duty and stern con¬ 
science of the American people. And if you want to find 
which is strongest, pride and courage on the one hand, or 
conscience and sense of duty on the other, read the history of 
the Cromwellian war, and you will learn that the proud 
Cavalier had to yield in the end to the conscientious Round¬ 
head. And so it will be now. The motto of the Union party 
is the same as it was in the beginning. We unite the language 
of Jackson, “ The Union—it must and shall be preserved/’ 
and the language of Webster, “ Liberty and Union, now and 
forever, one and inseparable.” 

But where stands the neutral party; the party of “ ifs,” 
“ ands,” and excuses ? Have you been here for three months 
now, occasionally presiding over this House, and do not know 
that there they stand [pointing to the Democratic side of the 
hall] as they stood three years ago, occupying the same posi¬ 
tion of bloodless neutrality? They have not changed their 
ground, though they give a different reason for holding it. 


SPEECHES. 


53 


They do not now say that coercion is unconstitutional. They 
do not now generally say that it is impossible, nor that any¬ 
thing you can give to the rebels by way of compromise will 
make their condition any better than it was before they re¬ 
belled. They generally concede that the rebellion must be 
suppressed by force of arms, or the Union be divided. But 
they say the President is always so unfortunate as to select 
unconstitutional means to effect what they now see, though 
they did not at first, is a constitutional purpose. And so they 
remain spectators; spectators in a war which involves the life 
of this nation and the fortunes of forty millions of people 
whose interests are associated with it. More than that: it 
involves the fortunes of the oppressed and middle classes all 
over the world ; for ours is the world’s representative republic. 
But, to do them justice, I must say they are not indifferent 
spectators. There they stand, glass in hand, or “nose all 
spectacle bestrid,” looking anxiously for some mistake in 
council, or some disaster in the field, which will fulfil their 
evil predictions and justify their position of neutrality before 
the world. Their music is a line of “ Yankee Doodle” and a 
half-line of “ Dixie,” filled out with the “ rub-a-dub-dub” of 
complaint and evil prophecy. 

But, although neutral, they are not idle. They have a 
great deal to do. They have to see that this war is conducted 
with Christian tenderness on our part, though met with savage 
atrocity on the other. They have to see that treason-tainted, 
slave-earned wealth escapes confiscation, though it impose a 
heavier burden on the honester earnings of loyal men. They 
have to see that your credit is decried, and the taxes necessary 
to support it denounced, and then to complain to the country 
that “ legal tenders” are not equal to gold. They have to see 
that a favorite general has an unlimited and untrammelled 
command, and that he is not held responsible for opportunities 
neglected or battles lost. They have to see that all possible— 


54 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


at least all constitutional—objections are thrown in the way 
of the exercise of the elective franchise by the Union soldiers 
in the field, and that the freest elections are secured to the 
unpardoned secessionist in the rebel and border States. They 
have to see that practical amalgamation goes on undisturbed 
by any unconstitutional interference with the slave system of 
the South, while they falsely charge theoretical amalgamation 
on the virtuous people of the North. They have, too, to see 
that that portion of their followers who overestimate the abili¬ 
ties of the negro or underestimate their own, or perhaps have 
a proper appreciation of both, are held to party vassalage by 
constant dread of negro emulation. They have to see that 
their weaker brethren are educated into the belief that the 
negro is only fit for a slave and can never be anything else; 
and then to distress them with apprehensions that they may 
yet be compelled to compete with him in the industrial and 
professional pursuits of life, where brains, not color, will 
ascribe to each his just measure of success. 

These are only specimens of the multitudinous labors of 
this neutral organization. If I were to go on with a full 
catalogue, I would exhaust your patience and my strength. 
I want, however, to call the attention of the committee to one 
thing more. 

The main allegation, the one always relied upon to justify 
their neutrality before the world, is that the war is conducted 
with a view of overthrowing slavery as well as the rebellion. 
If this allegation were true, what a position for a statesman 
to take; what a position for any man to take who expects to 
leave a name that will be remembered when he is gone, and 
a posterity condemned to bear it! It might do for James 
Buchanan, for God in his infinite mercy has provided that no 
child shall wear through life a name of such deep dishonor, 
but for nobody else. But, sir, it is not true in the sense in 
which it is alleged. It is not true that the war is carried on 


SPEECHES. 


55 


for the purpose of abolishing slavery. Those who believe it 
mistake an incident for the purpose of the war, the means 
employed for the end desired. You might as well say when 
we battered down Pulaski and Sumter that that was the object 
of the war. 

The President’s great proclamation is urged in evidence of 
this allegation. The President saw that Great Britain was 
furnishing arms to the rebels. He invited that nation to de¬ 
sist, and accompanied his invitation with some promises and 
some threats. Great Britain desisted. The President saw 
that the slave was furnishing the rebels with food, clothing, 
labor, and fortifications; and he invited the slave to desist, 
accompanying that invitation with no threats, but with a 
single promise,—the promise of freedom. That is all there 
is in the proclamation. 

Mr. Wadsworth.— The gentleman states that the object 
of the proclamation of emancipation was to disturb the labor 
which supplied the rebels with food, etc. I know that the 
President has given that as the object of the proclamation; 
but I ask the gentleman if that can be so, in view of the fact 
which he recollects, that the proclamation itself advises the 
slaves to remain quiet and continue to labor for wages f 

Mr. Scofield. —I do not now recollect the language of 
the proclamation, but I do not understand that he advised 
them to work for the rebels. The advice given was designed 
to avoid apprehended insurrections. The purpose of the Presi¬ 
dent was to diminish the support furnished to the rebel cause 
by the slave, without exposing the women and children of the 
South to the sufferings of servile warfare. This purpose 
might have been strengthened in the honest heart of the Pres¬ 
ident by some kinder sentiment than a cold military policy, 
and if so I will leave it to others to see that he is properly 
denounced. It is enough for me to know that it was a master¬ 
stroke of military strategy, which no general has, to my knowl- 


56 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


edge as yet, publicly condemned. As far as possible, the slave 
has since brought us not only his labor, but an army of one or 
two hundred thousand men. Who now wants this promise 
recalled ? If not recalled, who wants it violated in the future ? 
Who wants the colored army disbanded and sent back to their 
rebel masters, and white men drafted in their stead? Will 
you of the neutral party dare to answer these questions in the 
affirmative? If you carry the next election, will you violate 
the President’s promise to the slave? Will you say to the 
negro soldier, “Leave the battle-fields of our country, and 
seek again the cotton-fields of your rebel master; your blood 
has stained, though not dishonored, the one; the unpaid sweat 
of your brow shall hereafter moisten and enrich the other ?” 

Again, the President saw, or rather the people saw,—for 
our cautious President, I am glad to say, does not attempt to 
do the people’s thinking, and sometimes hardly keeps out of 
the way of the wheels of rapidly-advancing popular senti¬ 
ment,—that every State redeemed from this unrepublican 
system of labor was thus placed beyond Confederate desire. 
Such a State was considered, by the rebel builders, unfit for 
an edifice whose corner-stone was slavery. They wanted no 
free State in their Confederacy to preach antislavery by a 
prosperous example. They said this at Montgomery when 
they made their constitution, and have always said it since. 
We knew it was true, if they had not said it at all. If the 
border States become free, they do not want them in the 
Confederacy, while without them their territory becomes so 
insignificant that they do not want a confederacy. 

The administration, therefore, encouraged emancipation in 
the loyal slave States, as the best mode of bringing the war 
to a successful issue. Under that encouragement slavery has 
been abolished in the District of Columbia and three or four 
States. The neutrals have opposed and denounced this prog¬ 
ress step by step. If intrusted with the power at the next 


SPEECHES. 


57 


election, they are pledged to undo all that has been so wisely 
done. They will re-establish slavery in the District of Colum¬ 
bia, and, so far as their influence will go, in all the border 
States. They must, to be consistent, re-enact the slave code 
and rebuild the slave prison, and having got all things in 
readiness, they must call upon their party friends, and, armed 
with lassos and handcuffs, start out upon a grand hunt for 
the emancipated and scattered bondmen. 

On the other hand, the Union party have resolved that, 
with the blessing of God, this country shall not only remain 
an undivided country, but, now that the necessities of the war 
and the humanity of the age require it, it shall become a free 
country. The shadow of your flag shall never grow less, nor 
shall it darken the life of the humblest man beneath it. The 
Union shall be restored, and the United States, the simple 
name that Washington gave us, shall be the name and indi¬ 
cate the character of this country for all time to come. And 
it shall be a name that the poor will love and the proud fear, 
all over the world. 


58 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


SPEECH 

ON THE BILL “TO GUARANTEE TO CERTAIN STATES, WHOSE 
" GOVERNMENTS ARE USURPED OR OVERTHROWN, A 
REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.” 


Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 29, 1864. 


Mr. Scofield said: 

Mr. Speaker,— The continuity of constitutional govern¬ 
ment in the seceded States has been broken, the regular trans¬ 
mission of political power interrupted. How shall the severed 
thread be joined ? By the unconstrained action of the people 
themselves, say the gentlemen in opposition. Very good, sir. 
I most heartily endorse that sentiment. When the people of 
these States shall voluntarily ground the arms of their re¬ 
bellion, and uncoerced take upon themselves the easy yoke 
and light burden of the ever-gentle Federal government, it 
will mark a glad day in these uncheerful years of our history. 
For one, I will be ready to hail it. I presume I may speak 
for my political associates: we will all be ready to hail it. 
Your careworn President and weary army—weary with , but 
not o/, the battle—will be ready to hail it. The Federal arm, 
now raised in such terrible power in defence of the life and 
liberties of the nation, will fall as gently as the tenderest 
sympathizer will ask upon the heads of repentant and par¬ 
doned offenders. But that bright day does not yet dawn. 
These erring prodigals still prefer the husks of transgression 
to the fatted calf with which their old political allies would 




SPEECHES. 


59 


entice them back to party,—perhaps to duty. Your calf has 
grown to be an ox, so long do they tarry in revolt; and I 
fear they will continue to neglect your feast until our gallant 
army shall bring them to their stomachs. 

In the mean while some kind of government ought to be 
established in those States from which the hostile army has 
been excluded; and while we wait the return of friendly 
popular action there, Congress must legislate or leave the peo¬ 
ple in the rough hand of military law. This bill, designed 
to discharge that Congressional duty, provides a temporary 
government and a practical mode of State restoration. I will 
not enter into a criticism of its many details, for I suppose they 
will be generally acceptable to any one who concedes the pro¬ 
priety of any Congressional action. Its three prohibitions, as it 
strikes me, are the most noticeable and perhaps only debatable 
points. It prohibits the assumption of rebel debts, prohibits 
rebel officers from voting, and prohibits involuntary servitude. 

The first I will pass by with the single remark that to 
assume the rebel debt would be to offer a high bounty for 
future rebellions, and I suppose we will have enough of this 
one never to want another. 

I have but a word for the second prohibition. The ballot 
is the sovereign of this country, and if you permit these offi¬ 
cers to vote you make them, to the extent of their numbers 
and influence, the rulers of the land. To-day you meet them 
in battle as outlaws and traitors, conquer them, and crown 
them your king to-morrow. If ordinary criminals are prop¬ 
erly excluded from the polls, upon what principle of com¬ 
parative justice can these men, guilty, not as subordinates or 
accessories, but as contrivers and leaders of a crime recognized 
by all governments as the highest or deepest that can be com¬ 
mitted against human laws, ask the high privilege of the ballot, 
through which they may complete the ruin of the country they 
were not quite able to destroy in the field ? 


60 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Of the third prohibition I have something more to say. 

Mr. Speaker, if God shall give us victory, and enable us 
to subdue or scatter the army of the enemy, is a voluntary 
reunion of the States possible? I say voluntary because I 
suppose nobody desires a union always to be maintained by 
force; and I use the word reunion because nobody proposes a 
form of government different from our present system of State 
brotherhood. I am not now speaking of the several plans of 
reconstruction, for they are designed only as temporary devices, 
looking to a reunion; a kind of scaffolding for repairs, to be 
torn away when the repairs are completed. My question looks 
beyond the battle and beyond reconstruction. When the vic¬ 
tory is won, if won it shall be, and the transition over, will 
the insurgent States willingly stay where they have been forci¬ 
bly put in their old places in the old Union? It has been said 
by gentlemen in opposition, and it seems to me with great 
truth, that, as at present constituted or situated, they will not. 
They disliked the Union three years ago too much to remain 
in it, and dislike has deepened into hate by the severity of the 
war. They tell us that Ireland, Poland, and Hungary,—sug¬ 
gestive names, I admit,—after so many years of compulsory 
alliance, do not yet fraternize with their political associates. 
They still sigh for separation, and impatiently await the oppor¬ 
tune hour in which to strike for independence. What then ? 
Shall these States be permitted to depart? No, sir. The 
great republic could not survive the amputation. Shall they 
be retained, then, in the long future, by military force? No, 
sir. Our own liberties could not survive their permanent 
subjugation. When the Federal government becomes strong 
enough to hold eleven States as colonies, it will be too strong, 
I fear, for the people’s liberties. To repeat my idea, if you 
allow a single stone to drop from the national edifice, the whole 
structure may fall; but if that stone must be held in its place 
by drafts upon its surroundings, supporting nothing itself, the 


SPEECHES. 


61 


building were stronger without it. This brings me to the 
paradoxical conclusion that we can neither allow these States 
to depart nor forever force them to remain. How can the 
paradox be solved ? By making them willing to remain, or, 
if this language still sounds paradoxical, I will say by re¬ 
moving all motive to depart. How can that be done ? 

Mr. Speaker, similarity of ideas is the bond of nationality. 
Contiguity of territory is nothing, natural boundaries are noth¬ 
ing, except as they are tributary to unity of thought. Ireland 
is indeed restless, but her restlessness is not owing to unslum¬ 
bering animosities of civil wars. Such wars have been more 
frequent and more severe between different parts of England 
and between England and Scotland than they ever were be¬ 
tween England and Ireland; and yet the people of these sec¬ 
tions of the British empire cordially fraternize. Nor is it 
owing to English subjugation, for Ireland is no more subju¬ 
gated to England than Massachusetts is to New York. She 
is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, possessing 
the same rights as any other part, with a proportionate repre¬ 
sentation in Parliament and all departments of government. 
English people and Irish people do not think alike. That is 
the trouble. They differ in religion, a difference that more 
than anything else has been the cause of popular estrange¬ 
ment throughout the world. They have each a long indepen¬ 
dent national history, full of glorious traditions; and national 
thoughts and feelings, long flowing in a particular direction, 
cut their channels rudely, but deep, and do not readily follow 
new though better channels of political science. These differ¬ 
ences of sentiment are only removed by years, perhaps centu¬ 
ries, of political and social intercourse. But in the case of 
Ireland this necessary intercourse was cut off by an inter¬ 
vening sea, a sea that under the old system of navigation was 
as wide, almost, as an ocean in our day. The same or similar 
things may be said of Poland and Hungary. They had even 


62 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


a greater difference in language, and in the case of Poland there 
was a wide difference in the form of government. Having 
been accustomed to a kind of republic, she was placed under 
the control of a solid, silent, cast-iron, absolute monarchy. 
There is no analogy between these countries and ours. All 
our States prefer a government republican in form. Even 
the insurgent States adopted a constitution almost exactly like 
the one they attempted to abandon. We have the same 
national history. Whatever there may be in the past, either 
of suffering or achievement, worthy to be remembered or 
cherished, is the common property and pride of all the States. 
We follow the same fashions, speak the same language, and 
worship at the same altar. No mountains, no seas, divide us. 
On the contrary, the shape of your territory and the course 
of your rivers are of themselves a revelation that the Union 
of the States is an ordinance of God. 

We have but one cause of estrangement, the difference of 
opinion upon the subject of slavery. Upon that subject can 
the North and the South be induced to think alike? Can the 
North be induced to sanction slavery and think with the South, 
or can the South be induced to abandon slavery and think 
with the North ? Either course would accomplish the pur¬ 
pose. Is either practical, and, if so, which is most practical ? 
I will not now ask which is most just. Many persons will 
not consider these questions, because they think there is an 
easier and better way. Let the North and the South, say 
they, agree to disagree about slavery, each section retaining 
and acting upon its own opinions unmolested by the other. 
This theory is plausible; it involves no expensive and trouble¬ 
some change. I blame no one for adopting it, for I am myself 
one of its aforetime believers. I never could bring my mind 
to doubt its practicability until I actually saw the dissatisfied 
States go out. Even when warned in advance that these States 
would secede unless the North suppressed their own views of 


SPEECHES. 


63 


slavery and adopted or silently acquiesced in the views of the 
South, I confess I was incredulous. I still believed we could 
hold the Union together and each section retain and utter its 
own sentiments. But the moment the people decided that a 
man holding the sentiments of the North was not thereby dis¬ 
qualified to hold a Federal office, secession followed. Experi¬ 
ence, that high-priced school in which it is said the dumbest 
learn, has taught its lesson. The theory has failed upon trial. 
Each section, I know, charges the failure to the other. “ You 
wrote and spoke and agitated against slavery,” says the South, 
“ and thus irritated and maddened our people into rebellion;” 
“and you,” says the North, “annexed Texas and tried to 
annex Cuba for the sake of slavery, and insisted upon extend¬ 
ing it to California and Kansas, and thus forced us to discuss 
its merits.” Blame whom you please, the slave-holders, the 
abolitionists, or both; the fault was in the theory. It was 
not possible to ignore a great subject like slavery, connected, 
as it was, with all our business and all our politics, in this 
busy, thinking, many-tongued republic. 

The Democratic party North that clung to this theory so 
long, and sacrificed to it so much of party ascendency, acting, 
quite likely, from patriotic motives, are very slow to com¬ 
prehend and accept its fallacy, now so clearly demonstrated, 
although they were the prophets of its failure. They cannot 
see, they say, why slavery and freedom cannot coexist in 
the same country. Why, sir, they can coexist, but not in a 
country of unlicensed presses and uncensored debates without 
provoking discussions on many questions of conflicting interest, 
and this discussion they concede—nay, they charge—provokes 
rebellion. The revolted States, knowing that discussion was 
irrepressible, and fearing that it was inimical to their institu¬ 
tion, gathered up their slave investments and walked out of 
the Union, leaving their old allies doubly amazed,—amazed 
to see the theory in which they had so long believed fail, and 


64 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


the prophecy of its failure, in which they never did believe, 
fulfilled. A witty Democrat, in speaking of this prophecy 
by one party and its denial by the other, said to me the other 
day there was this difference between us, “ You lied when you 
thought you were speaking the truth, and we spoke the truth 
when we thought we were lying.” They are still bewildered. 
I can think of no apter comparison than a hen with a double 
brood of chickens and ducks. Sometimes they try by tender 
clucking to call back to the peaceful shore the brood of seces¬ 
sionists, hatched by their false theories of State sovereignty 
and concessions to the slave power, and again they flutter to 
the water’s edge and contemplate embarking with them upon 
the chill waves of revolution. The wild ducks of the South 
took readily to this dangerous element, but so far their twin- 
hatched chickens have been content to cackle on land. 

But to come back to the point. Our fathers, say the advo¬ 
cates of this theory, lived in peace upon the same principle. 
A precedent is always good with a lawyer, and if our fathers 
lived in peace, if only for half a century, upon this compro¬ 
mise, we can certainly follow their example. But those who 
cite the precedent mistake the facts in the case. The com¬ 
promise of our fathers was, that slavery should be tolerated 
for a time with the understanding that it should be gradually 
relinquished. They did not expect both ideas, slavery and 
freedom, to go hand in hand throughout the whole life of the 
republic. Slavery was to recede slowly, and freedom follow 
steadily. Upon that basis they did get along very well, and 
so could we. Territorial acquisitions and certain discoveries in 
the material arts, as it is said, changed the attitude of slavery 
altogether. Instead of consenting to go out, it demanded ex¬ 
pansion and perpetuity. Instead of remaining subordinate, 
it claimed to be the national idea and denounced freedom as 
sectional. This was just reversing the compromise of our 
fathers, and of course it had to be discussed, and at this the 


SPEECHES. 


65 


slave interest took umbrage and resorted to secession and war. 
If, then, these two systems cannot coexist without causing 
discussion, and slavery will not brook discussion, it is clear 
we cannot have a voluntary reunion unless one sentiment or 
the other becomes predominant. The North and the South 
must learn to think alike upon this subject, or agree to submit 
their differences to general and free debate, taking no appeal 
from popular, legislative, and judicial action and decision, 
except according to the forms of the Constitution, or, upon a 
rehearing, to ask the sober second thought of the people upon 
any point supposed to be settled wrong. But the slave in¬ 
terest, anticipating unfavorable action and therefore refusing 
to abide by the decisions of this constitutional umpire, leaves 
us no alternative. To live in peace together we must embrace 
slavery or they must abandon it. 

“ Homogeneity/’ said Jeff. Davis at Montgomery. His 
opinion, I know, is very poor authority with this House, but 
I believe he has thought more profoundly upon this subject 
than any muddle-brained advocate of mixture in the country. 
His head is clear though his heart is cold. Just the reverse 
is true of those well-meaning and perhaps patriotic gentlemen 
with us who still believe in the union of opposites and the 
harmony of extremes: their hearts are tender and so are their 
heads. 

If, then, likeness of sentiment is the surest bond of a 
permanent and peaceful Union, which can be most easily 
adopted as the national standard, slavery or freedom? To 
adopt slavery involves a change of opinion on the part of a 
great many people, twenty millions in the free States alone; 
for slavery never had any real friends in the free States. 
Those who are sometimes so considered were only its apolo¬ 
gists. How can you change the opinions of twenty or thirty 
millions of people? Remember, sir, that opinions are not 
voluntary things, to be taken up and laid down at pleasure. 


66 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


The mind deals in proofs. Belief follows evidence. But if 
three years ago slavery could find no real admirers in the free 
States, who will be its champions now, since it has crowned 
its many alleged offences against the rights of man with this 
bloody treason against the mildest and most beneficent gov¬ 
ernment in the world ? Many, 1 am sure, who took its dark 
hand then, not in friendship, but only in token of constitu¬ 
tional obligation, will recoil from it now in horror when they 
see it extended reddened with the blood of our thousands slain. 
On the other hand, to adopt freedom as the national idea in¬ 
volves only a change of investment. That may not be easy; 
it will be attended with loss, trouble, and sacrifice; but still 
it is possible, while a change of opinion without new proofs 
is not. It is from this view of the case that thousands of 
men, formerly pro-slavery from principle and practice, have 
become antislavery from Union policy. Living in slave 
States, they did not regard the institution as immoral, and 
therefore sanctioned it. But when they saw it used by anti¬ 
republicans, and disguised monarchists, for the subversion of 
popular liberty and the division of this government—a gov¬ 
ernment weak, indeed, when in conflict with the feelings of 
its honest citizens, but always majestically strong when its 
flag was assailed—into two insignificant, wrangling, and hos¬ 
tile nationalities, they rose above local prejudices and State 
policy and personal interests, and said to antislavery men 
and patriotic men everywhere, we will join you to save our 
country, to overthrow the rebellion, and to break into frag¬ 
ments the stone upon which it is built. For the present 
extinguish the great conflagration ; for the future remove the 
inflammable material from which it was kindled. For the 
present seize the mad revolutionists of the South; for the 
future destroy the virus that poisoned their blood. 

In the debate here a few days ago, the consistency of some 
gentlemen from the loyal slave States, who were said to be 


SPEECHES. 


67 


moderate emancipationists many years ago, and are only mod¬ 
erately so now, was contrasted with the alleged changes of 
their more radical colleagues. Gentlemen who boast of their 
consistency seem often to forget that there is such a thing as 
being upon different sides of the same question at different 
times and each time right. The question itself often changes 
sides. I can very well understand how a citizen of a slave 
State many years ago, giving little attention to the morality 
of the institution, might fall in with the settled policy of his 
section and decline to disturb the harmony of his neighbor¬ 
hood by what might seem to him then the unnecessary or 
untimely introduction of abolition agitation, and yet now be¬ 
come an earnest and honest emancipationist in the belief that 
emancipation alone could preserve the unity of the country. 
There is such a thing as being right in the wrong time and 
wrong in the right time. I do not say that those who intro¬ 
duced emancipation in the slave States many years ago were 
right in the wrong time, but sure I am that all such gentle¬ 
men who retard emancipation now are wrong in the right 
time. But this plan of Union does not necessarily involve 
immediate emancipation, and I therefore hail all whose labors 
tend, however slow, to the general result, as co-workers for a 
voluntary and peaceful reunion of all the States. 

In these remarks I have confined myself to a single point, 
the presentation of slavery as an element of discord and dis¬ 
union, and as such asked its removal. I have waived its 
inhumanity to the slave, its corruption of the master, its in¬ 
justice to white labor, its impoverishment of the soil, its intol¬ 
erance in politics, its despotism in government, its inconsist¬ 
ency in all things. Advocating State sovereignty, it blots out 
all divisions of its empire, moulds all its States into a single 
power, and calls it the “ South.” Professing liberality, it yet 
proscribes from the lowest office the most exalted patriotism, 
the most brilliant abilities, the highest learning, and the purest 


68 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


integrity, if found blended with the slightest compassion for 
the slave. Claiming to be law-abiding, the mob, the bowie- 
knife, and the bludgeon are its chief ministers of justice. 
Professing to be constitutional, it suspends the great writ of 
liberty in time of peace, tramples down the trial by jury when 
found in its way, contracts freedom of speech to the right to 
advocate its unchristian cause, revives constructive treason, 
and in Philadelphia, Boston, and Kansas indicts of that high 
crime respectable citizens who spoke too rudely of its traffic 
in men. All this, and much more, I have omitted because 
they were not in the line of my present purpose. 

And now I call upon those gentlemen who think there are 
some concessions within the range of possibility which, if made, 
would conciliate the slave power and restore the Union with¬ 
out the necessity of resorting to emancipation, to point out 
what they are. Name the items. Of course you will not 
mention the proclamation, confiscation, and what you call the 
unconstitutional acts of the administration, for the rebellion 
preceded all these. On the territorial question there was 
nothing left to concede. The Wilmot proviso had been voted 
down, the Missouri compromise repealed, and the Dred Scott 
opinion ordered and obtained. Even James Buchanan, so 
gifted in abasement, could find nothing more in the shape of 
theory to give them, and in its stead tendered them the low 
villany of Lecompton. The fugitive act of 1850, with its 
slave-hunting officers, the posse comitatus, the conclusive affi¬ 
davit of the master, habeas corpus and trial by jury abolished, 
and the United States to foot the bill, left nothing more to be 
conceded here. 

Concession exhausted and conciliation still a failure ! Here¬ 
after let all concession be in favor of freedom; and in all our 
legislation let us approximate, as rapidly as the interests of 
the two races will permit, the homogeneity of universal eman¬ 
cipation, and upon that basis make the Union perpetual. 


SPEECHES. 


69 


SPEECH 

ON THE AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT 
SLAVERY. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , January 6 , 1865 , in reply to 
the Hon. James Brooks. 


Mr. Scofield said: 

Mr. Speaker, —I rise to make some observations in reply 
to the very remarkable criticism pronounced by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Brooks] on the antislavery portion of 
the President’s message. 

If the war should end now without a division of the Union, 
what would be the status of slavery ? It has been abolished 
in Maryland by the new constitution; but it is said that the 
soldiers had no right to vote, and without their votes the 
constitution was not adopted. West Virginia has provided 
for gradual emancipation; but that State, it is alleged, has no 
legal existence, and therefore its action is null and void. In 
the State of Virginia a new constitution prohibiting slavery 
has been adopted by the loyal people within the Union lines; 
but the constitutionality of this action has been much ques¬ 
tioned, even by antislavery men. Missouri has partially abol¬ 
ished slavery, and the convention, soon to assemble there, it 
is supposed, will dispose of what is left. In Tennessee, Ar¬ 
kansas, and Louisiana slavery has been prohibited by conven¬ 
tions representing the Union people of those States; but it is 
said that these conventions were irregularly called, and their 




70 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


action is therefore void. In Kentucky such slaves as enter 
the United States army are freed by act of Congress; but it 
is alleged that the act is unconstitutional. Congress has abol¬ 
ished slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibited it 
in all the Territories; but it is said the first act is void, with¬ 
out the assent of Maryland and Virginia, and the latter is in 
conflict with the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of 
Dred Scott. In all the remainder of the States the slaves 
were liberated by the President’s proclamation ; but that in¬ 
strument, it is said, is too just to be legal. Under these 
several enactments, however, the slaves, without waiting to 
test their validity, are leaving their old masters, forming new 
associations, seeking education, earning new homes, learning 
self-reliance, and thus erecting barriers to the revival of 
slavery, stronger than legislation itself. 

It is apparent from this statement, that if the Confederacy 
should suddenly collapse, liberating our Union fellow-citizens 
that are believed to exist in large numbers within its picket¬ 
lines, we would still have the slavery question, out of which 
the whole trouble grew, to be settled and disposed of. It 
ought to be equally apparent to all observing persons that 
there is but one way to end the strife. Slavery in the end 
must die. It has cost the country too much suffering and 
too much patriotic blood, and is in theory an institution too 
monstrous, to be permitted to live. The only question is, 
shall it die now, by a constitutional amendment,—a single 
stroke of the axe,—or shall it linger in party warfare through 
a quarter or half a century of acrimonious debate, patchwork 
legislation, and conflicting adjudication? The people were 
consulted upon this question last fall, and they have responded 
in favor of emancipation. I respect their opinion, not because 
I am a politician, the motive hinted at in the message, but 
because experience has taught me to rely upon the judgment 
of the unambitious classes. I am reminded that there was a 


SPEECHES. 


71 


large minority. True, but the suffering consequent upon this 
terrible war, and not love of slavery, made the minority so 
large. The people suffered from the draff, from taxation, 
and from a depreciated currency, and untruthful men told 
them that their own government imposed these hardships, 
not from the necessities created by the rebellion, but from 
mere love of despotic cruelty. Consult your Democratic con¬ 
stituency and you will find they are not so much infatuated 
with slavery as many suppose. I think I would not mis¬ 
represent the largest portion of the Democrats in my own dis¬ 
trict if I say that, however much they may have condemned 
antislavery agitation prior to the rebellion, they would now 
be glad to have the institution buried out of their sight for¬ 
ever. Two classes alone would object: those who are so 
poorly endowed as to be jealous of negro competition, and 
those who, being more happily born, apprehend that their 
pride and importance might in some way be compromised if 
the distance between themselves and any portion of the labor¬ 
ing classes were lessened. 

The President, in obedience to the advice of the people and 
the dictates of his own kind heart and unimpassioned judg¬ 
ment, has recommended that we should submit this amend¬ 
ment to the action of the States. Why should it not be done ? 
Because, says the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks], 
we should not amend the Constitution in the midst of civil 
war. Why, then, did he, in the close of his speech, propose 
to amend it, through the medium of a convention, so as to 
give slavery an increased representation in this House and a 
protraction of its mischievous life; and, further, to amend, in 
pursuit of some State sovereignty vagary, so as to sink the 
government of the United States into a mere agency for the 
collection of customs ? Do not take the medicine now, says 
the tender nurse to the sick man; wait till you are well and 
able to bear it. If the gentleman will examine his own heart, 


72 


GLENNl W. SCOFIELD. 


he will probably find that it is the character of the amendment 
that is offensive to him, and not its untimely presentation. 

Again, says the ^gentleman, some of the States are not 
represented here. He seems to forget that Congress does not 
make amendments to the Constitution, but only proposes them. 
They must be accepted by three-fourths of all the States in the 
Union before they become part of the fundamental law. If 
Congress cannot even propose amendments before the seceded 
States come in, how can the gentleman call his convention ? 
for that must be done by Congress. If these States are not 
represented here, the fault is theirs, not ours. Must all legis¬ 
lation be stayed until they choose to return ? and if not, why 
this more than other important acts ? If that rule should be 
adopted we would always be in the power of a few members 
who chose to place themselves beyond the reach of the ser¬ 
geant-at-arms. The gentleman trifles with the gravity of the 
question and the good sense of the House when he raises these 
objections, but still proposes to waive them in favor of a 
convention to consider his own amendments. 

Why not tolerate slavery, continues the honorable gentle¬ 
man, and thus make the slave-holders contented with the 
Union ? What evidence is there that toleration would content 
them? They separated from the Union and organized an 
independent government in February, 1861. When, prior to 
that, had the institution for whose prolonged cruelty the gen¬ 
tleman pleads so earnestly lacked toleration? I submit that 
it had always been tolerated; nay, more, it had always had its 
will and its way in this republic,—I trust I will not offend 
any member’s sensibilities if I say its oppressive will and its 
unchristian way. Whatever was asked was granted. When 
it asked new markets to raise the price of men and women, 
and to create a demand for the surplus children of the in¬ 
stitution, the request was granted. Louisiana and Florida 
Territories were purchased in part for this purpose. For 


SPEECHES. 


73 


this purpose Texas was smuggled into the Union, and a 
war, unnecessary for any other purpose, secured the northern 
provinces of Mexico. When it demanded that white laborers 
should go farther north, and surrender mild-elimated Mis¬ 
souri to slave labor, the surrender was made. When, from 
motives of policy, it demanded the passage of the Missouri 
compromise, it was passed. When it demanded its repeal, 
it was repealed. It bade us vote down the Wilmot proviso, 
and we obeyed. It demanded that escaped bondmen should 
be caught and returned, free of cost, and we gave them the 
despotic law. Again, it demanded exemption from the criti¬ 
cism to which all things else in a republic are exposed, and 
we granted the immunity. To this end, we submitted to a 
censorship of the mails, and authorized the burning of all 
offensive papers and letters, in the vain hope to destroy eter¬ 
nal ideas. To this end, it demanded silence in this House 
and in the Senate, and we adopted the “ Atherton gag.” To 
this end, it demanded silence in the North, and every city 
raised its pro-slavery mob to demolish presses and murder 
editors and lecturers. The hand of slavery has ever been 
against everybody, giving the republic no rest day or night. 
All day long these halls and the country resounded with its 
insolent demands. Now the West must be Africanized, now 
the East must be crushed, now Cuba must be stolen, and now 
Africa unbarred to the pirates, and it woke us up at night 
with its fierce clamors for escaped negroes. No, sir; slavery 
rebelled not because it was not tolerated, but because it would 
not tolerate anything else; I may say because it could not 
afford to tolerate anything else. It would not tolerate the 
Declaration of Independence, because that instrument pro¬ 
claimed the freedom and equality of the human race. It 
would not tolerate the literature of the English language, nor 
the Christianity of the American churches, nor the civilization 
of the nineteenth century, because their spirit was opposed to 


74 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


human bondage. It could not tolerate New England, because 
her education, her industry, her sobriety, her justice, and her 
unboasting courage were an implied censure upon slavery. 
And, last of all, slavery refused to tolerate the great principle 
upon which this republic is founded,—upon which all repub¬ 
lics must be founded : the will of the majority, constitutionally 
expressed. 

It was not only intolerant, but belligerent. It could not be 
otherwise. It recognized a natural, though undeclared, foe in 
every good cause, word, and work, and, in its efforts to destroy 
these, has destroyed itself. Conscious of its own inherent 
wrong, it began its defence before it was assailed, and, like the 
glass fortress, it has fallen not by the assaults of its enemies, 
but by the concussion of its own guns. It is pierced by its 
own poisoned arrow. 

“ So the struck eagle, stretched upon the plain, 

No more through rolling clouds to soar again, 

Viewed his own feather on the fatal dart, 

And winged the shaft that quivered in his heart.” 

We can hardly claim the honor of aiding even in its taking 
off. Like Falstaff’s victim, it was quite dead before we dared 
to strike. But tolerate it, cries the gentleman, and pacify 
the madmen of the South. If New York were afflicted with 
hydrophobia, the gentleman would advise his constituents to 
tolerate mad dogs. Do not muzzle them, he would tenderly 
exclaim, do not chain them, do not kill them; but tolerate, 
conciliate, cherish them, until this terrible disease disappears 
from the city. 

But if slavery is prohibited the country will become homo¬ 
geneous, and, in his opinion, homogeneity is not desirable. 
Neither the ancient nor modern nations of Europe, he informs 
us, were homogeneous. They had many systems of worship, 
and many kinds of languages and races of men; but, unfortu- 


SPEECHES. 


75 


nately for his argument, in another part of his speech, and for 
a different purpose, he confesses that these same nations were 
afflicted with long and frequent civil wars, originating in that 
lack of homogeneity which he so much commends. But if 
this diversity of character is as desirable as represented, cer¬ 
tainly we have enough of it without trying to reinstate slavery. 
Religion is nowhere more free than in this country. Every 
man selects his own altar. And as for races and languages, 
what quarter of the many-tongued earth has not contributed 
to our population ? No thanks, however, to the honorable 
gentleman for this. As the leader and organ editor of the 
American party, he could not tolerate these foreign-born races, 
nor the adherents of the Catholic church ; and he comes here 
now and asks us to be more intolerant even than that. He 
asks us to proscribe a whole race, not only to the extent to 
which he proscribed foreign-born races, but to go further and 
proscribe them from the human family and rank them with 
the brute creation. And he asks us to do this in the name of 
toleration. “ Strange that a man’s mouth can run on thus.” 

It has been often said of late that history repeats itself. Of 
course it cannot be literally true ; but the gentleman reiterates 
it, and then proceeds to search for the prototype of the terrible 
drama now being enacted on this continent, and affects to find 
it in the Revolution of 1776. Having settled this point to his 
own satisfaction, he proceeds to assign to the living actors their 
historic parts. The rebels take the position of the colonial 
revolutionists, the government of the United States re-enacts 
the part of George III. and his ministers, while for himself 
and the Opposition debaters of this House he selects the hon¬ 
orable rdle of Chatham, Fox, Burke, and other champions of 
colonial rights in the British Parliament. Let us examine 
this. It is true that the colonists rebelled against the govern¬ 
ment of Great Britain, and the slave-holders rebelled against 
the government of the United States ; but here the likeness 


76 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


ends. Between the circumstances that might provoke or 
justify rebellion in the two cases there is no resemblance. The 
government from which the colonies separated was three thou¬ 
sand miles beyond the seas. They could not even commu¬ 
nicate with it in those days in less than two or three months. 
In that government they had no representation, and their 
wants and wishes no authoritative voice. Nor was it the form 
of government most acceptable to the colonists. They preferred 
a republic. The rapidly-increasing population and the geo¬ 
graphical extent and position of the colonies demanded nation¬ 
ality. Sooner or later it must come. The tea tax and other 
trifling grievances only hurried on an event that was sure to 
occur from the influences of geography and population alone. 
How is it in these respects with the present rebellion ? The 
government against which the slave-holders rebelled was not 
a foreign one: it was as much theirs as ours. They were 
fully represented in it. There was scarcely a law, indeed I 
think there was not a single law upon the statute-book, to 
which they had not given their assent. It was the govern¬ 
ment they helped to make, and it was made as they wanted it. 
They had ever had their share of control and patronage in it, 
and more than their share, for they boasted, with much truth, 
that cotton was king. Nor is there any geographical reason in 
their favor. It is conceded, even by the rebels themselves, 
that a division of the territory lying compactly between the 
Lakes and the Gulf, the Atlantic and the Mississippi, into two 
nations, would be a great misfortune to both. If it were the 
Pacific States demanding separation, bad as that would be, 
there would be some sense in it; but for this territory you 
cannot even find a dividing line. When you attempt to run 
one, the rivers and mountains cross your purpose. Both the 
land and the water oppose division. There is no disunion 
outside the wicked hearts of these disloyal men. I can see no 
resemblance, then, between our patriot fathers, who toiled 


SPEECHES. 


77 


through a seven years’ war to establish this beneficent gov¬ 
ernment, and the traitors who drench the land in blood in an 
attempt—I trust in God a vain one—to destroy it. 

Again, sir, in what respect do the apologists of the present 
rebellion in this House resemble the advocates of our great 
Revolution in the British Parliament? Conceding they are 
their equals in statesmanship, learning, eloquence, and wit, I 
submit that they fall far below them in the merit of their 
respective causes. Chatham defended the cause of the colonists 
as set forth in the Declaration of Independence that “ all men 
are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain in¬ 
alienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pur¬ 
suit of happiness;” the honorable gentleman from New York 
pleads for slavery, the auction-block, the coffle, the lash. 
With slavery he cures all national troubles. He begs for 
harmony among ourselves. How shall we be united ? “ Re¬ 
store slavery,” says he. He is opposed to war. How, then, 
shall rebels in arms be subdued? “Revive the traffic in 
blood.” He is opposed to taxes. How, then, shall our ex¬ 
hausted treasury be replenished ? “ Raise more children for 

the market.” Slavery, more slavery, still more slavery, is the 
only prescription of the Opposition doctors. If we are to look 
for the representatives of these great men on this side of the 
Atlantic, I would not select them from among those who, born 
and raised in the free States, with all their moral and educa¬ 
tional advantages, had not yet quite virtue enough, when the 
struggle came, to be patriots, nor quite courage enough to be 
rebels, but I would rather select them from such men as 
Johnson, of Tennessee, or Davis, of Maryland, who, born and 
educated amid the influences of slavery, still stood up for the 
Union cause, at first almost alone. But, sir, the representa¬ 
tives of these men are to be found now, as they were then, on 
the other side of the Atlantic, the leaders of the Liberal party 
in the British Parliament. 


78 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


There is another party, that figures largely in the history 
of the Revolutionary struggle, that the gentleman entirely 
omitted to name." He gave it no place in his cast of parts. 
The omission may be attributed to either modesty or forget¬ 
fulness. Prior to the Revolution the members of this party 
had filled all the places of honor and profit in the colonies, 
and when the war came they heartily espoused the cause of 
the king, though they did not generally join his armies. 
Their principal business was to magnify disaster, depreciate 
success, denounce the currency, complain of the taxes, and 
denounce and dodge arbitrary arrests. To the patriot cause 
they were ever prophets of evil. Failure was their word. 
The past was a failure, the future would be. In the begin¬ 
ning of the war this party was in the majority in some of the 
colonies, and constituted a large minority in all, but as the 
war progressed their numbers constantly diminished. Many 
of the leaders were from time to time sent beyond the “ lines” 
and their estates confiscated. Most of these settled in New 
Brunswick and Nova Scotia, right handy to the place where 
the gentleman informs us he was born. The members of this 
party were called tories, and if this war is but a repetition of 
the war of the Revolution, as the gentleman intimates, who 
are their present representatives? 

Again exclaims the gentleman, “ You cannot subjugate eight 
million people.” I know not which most to condemn in this 
expression (I speak it, of course, without personal application), 
its insinuation of falsehood or its confession of cowardice. 
The United States does not propose to subjugate any portion 
of its people, but only to exact obedience to law from all. It 
is this misrepresentation of the purpose of the government 
that still keeps alive the dying flames of the rebellion. I can 
go further with perfect truth, and say it was this misrepresen¬ 
tation that lighted those flames at the first. The slave-holders 
were told that it was the purpose of this administration to 


SPEECHES. 


79 


destroy their personal and political rights; next they were 
reminded that they were proud, brave, chivalric men, and 
then tauntingly asked if they were going to submit. They 
were thus fairly coaxed and goaded into rebellion. Except 
for this misrepresentation the Union people would have been 
in a large majority in all the slave States, and despite it they 
are in a majority in more than half of them to-day if they 
could be heard. But they are gagged, bound hand and foot, 
by a despotism so cruel and so mean, so thorough and so 
efficient, that even the gentleman from New York has no 
fault to find with it. The country is too much engaged now 
with the immediate actors in the drama to look behind the 
scenes for the authors and prompters of the play. But when 
these actors have disappeared from the stage, gone down to 
graves never to be honored, or are wandering among strangers 
never to be loved; in the peaceful future, when inquisition 
shall be made for the contrivers, instigators, aiders, and abet¬ 
tors of this great crime, the two classes so often coupled in 
denunciation in this hall, the abolitionists of the North and 
the fire-eaters of the South, will be scarcely noticed, but the 
quiet historian will “ point his slow, unmoving finger” at those 
Northern leaders who for fifteen years have deceived the South 
and betrayed the North. They will stand alone. The large 
minority that now gathers around them, moved thereto more 
in hopes to escape the severe hardships of the war than from 
any love of them or their position, will have melted away 
from their support like dissolving ice beneath their feet, and 
well will it be for their posterity if they can manage then, 
like Byron’s wrecks, to sink into the 

“ Depths with bubbling groan, 

Without a grave, unknelled, uncoffined, and unknown.” 

Subjugate the South ! No, sir; it is the purpose, as it is 
the duty, of the government to liberate the South, to drive 


80 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


out the usurpers, and to restore to the deluded and betrayed 
masses the blessings of a free republic. 

But the gentleman not only misrepresents the purpose of 
the government, to inflame the insurgents, but also misrep¬ 
resents the extent of the rebellion, to discourage the people in 
their etforts to subdue it. Where does he find his eight mil¬ 
lion hostile people? Allowing for West Virginia and East 
Tennessee, the whole white population of the eleven States 
that pretended to secede does not much exceed one-half that 
number. A large portion of these are now within the Union 
lines, professing no more hostility to the government than the 
gentleman himself. Of those that remain under the power of 
the usurper, a considerable number, in some localities more 
than half, do not desire a separate government, but would 
gladly accept the protection and privileges of the United 
States, if sure that they were beyond the reach of their pres¬ 
ent oppressors. Where, then, I ask again, does the gentle¬ 
man find his eight million people ? Does he mean to include 
the colored population of those States ? I suppose not; they 
are to be tolerated only as brutes. He would not, of course, 
include them under the head of people . I do not suppose he 
intended to include any portion of his own party. I have a 
right to conclude, then, that this number was only a slashing 
estimate, to make out a bad case. With half the white and 
all the black population in these seceded States, it would be 
very strange if the government were not strong enough to 
compel submission from the rest. The gentleman himself 
gives some little encouragement. The little State of Maine 
(in which he tells us just in this connection he was born) is a 
match for England, France, and Russia, and he finally adds 
for all Europe combined. Now, sir, if this little State which 
had only the honor of rocking his cradle, that claimed him 
only in long frocks and petticoats, could withstand all Europe 
single-handed, is it not reasonable to suppose that, combined 


SPEECHES. 


81 


with the State of his adoption, the great State of New York, 
that possesses him in all the glory of pantalooned manhood, 
it could flog the world and the “ rest of mankind,” in which 
I suppose the rebels would be included ? Maine can be relied 
upon for the contest, so can New York, since no perfidious 
hand now holds the helm, and the gentleman himself gives 
some hope that he may be goaded into the support of his 
struggling, suffering country. There is a point, he tells us, 
beyond which his forbearance will not go. It was not reached 
when the rebels seized our forts, navy-yards, arsenals, ships 
of war, mint, and custom-houses, mails and post-offices. It 
was not reached when they fired upon the starved garrison 
at Sumter. It was not reached when they raised an army, 
hoisted a traitor flag, and laid siege to the capital. It was 
not reached when they put pirates on the ocean to seize, rob, 
and burn the peaceful merchant-vessels from his own city. 
It was not reached when they raised the black flag and shot 
down our patriot soldiers after surrender and then burned the 
hospitals over the heads of the sick and wounded. It was 
not reached when they murdered women and children and 
unarmed men, and burned the villages on the border without 
military motive. It was not reached when, by the slow tor¬ 
ture of hunger and cold, they murdered by the thousands our 
dear, brave boys, prisoners of war in their hands. But he 
has an ultimatum notwithstanding. He announces it from 
his place in this hall, and boldly flings it in the teeth of the 
rebels, and has the courage to hope that they may hear him. 
They must not go too far, nor presume too much upon his 
forbearance. He will not stand everything. The insults and 
crimes I have named he can endure, forgive, forget; but if 
they dare to inspect his baggage as he travels South, he 
“ will not submit; never, never,” he repeats. “ Will you 
fight them?” inquires the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Wil¬ 
son]. Mark now the answer. “When that day and hour 


82 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


come I will be ready to mark out the course I will pursue.” 
Cambronne alone can answer that. It is fortunate for the 
rebels that the honorable gentleman has not yet learned that 
the privilege so highly prized has been denied him for three 
years and a half. 

Again, centralization, the absorption of all local and munici¬ 
pal authority by the Federal government, is another lion in 
the way of emancipation. What possible connection is there 
between centralization and emancipation? Why should one 
follow the other? Emancipation has been going on quite 
rapidly for two or three years; has the gentleman’s city lost 
any of its municipal rights in consequence? Is it not still 
ruled by the “ Five Points” majority, with nothing to fear 
but its own mobs ? Does it not still elect corrupt men for 
judges, and thieves to the Councils? Let the gentleman look 
at home with his fears. It is his own city that is centralizing, 
centralizing all the disloyalty and depravity of the North, and 
here he should begin his labors. 

Mr. Brooks. —I can stand any amount of personal abuse 
towards myself and fail to reply to it; but when he speaks 
thus of the city which I in part represent, I am bound to say 
that an effort was made by the Federal government, during 
the pendency of the late Presidential election, to control the 
city of New York by sending there a bold robber, in the 
person of a major-general of the United States. Robber as 
he was of the public treasury, and major-general of the United 
States as he was, he dared not exercise the power given to him 
to attempt to control the actions of those whom the gentle¬ 
man calls thieves and robbers in my own city. Thieves and 
robbers!- 

Mr. Scofield.— Mr. Speaker, I decline to yield to a speech 
from the gentleman, because he has had his time. If the 
gentleman has any question to put to me I will hear him. 

Mr. Brooks. —Mr. Speaker, I can stand any amount of 



SPEECHES. 


83 


personal attack on myself, but when my own constituents are 
called thieves and robbers, and when thieves and robbers are 
said to govern the metropolis of this country, I put it to the 
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania if, after making such 
imputations, it is propriety, it is decency, to refuse to give me 
here an opportunity, in the midst of a speech like that, to 
defend the million of people whom I represent from that 
imputation against them as thieves and robbers. 

Mr. Scofield. —Mr. Speaker, the only assault that I made 
on the city of New York was merely to repeat the allegations 
of its own papers. 

Mr. Ward.—W ill the gentleman yield to me for a mo¬ 
ment? 

Mr. Scofield. —If the gentleman desires merely to ask 
me a question I will yield to him; but if he wishes to make 
a speech I must decline. If I have made any attack upon 
the constituents of the gentleman [Mr. Brooks], I have 
learned what I am stating from the gentleman’s own paper, 
which has denounced again and again the election of certain 
persons to the Councils of New York, and branded them as 
thieves. 

I was going to say, sir, that slavery has always been a 
centralizing power in this country. Of late years the gov¬ 
ernment itself has been subsidiary to it. It is said that a 
railroad corporation in New York, with a capital of only a 
few million dollars, controls the State. It selects its agents 
in all the counties, and works unseen for their promotion. If 
in this way it fails to secure a majority, the deficiency is made 
up by appliances to the wants and weaknesses of its opponents. 

Mr. Pruyn.—I should like to know to what corporation 
the gentleman refers. 

Mr. Scofield. —I refer the gentleman to the New York 
Express. [Laughter.] I only allude to the railroad for the 
sake of illustration. Slavery had a capital of at least two 


84 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


billion dollars, as much under the control of a few men as if 
it were a corporation with a president and directors. It was 
this investment, thus centralized, that has been so appropri¬ 
ately and expressively, but to some people very offensively, 
called the “ slave power/’ Its control over the finances, 
trade, and politics of the country was almost supreme. It 
controlled the slave States by community of interest; by this 
agency it then selected the President of the United States, 
and through his patronage controlled the free States. It may 
be said without exaggeration that it owned the South, used 
the government, and hired the North. Emancipation will 
rid the country of this centralizing power, and if the gentle¬ 
man is really opposed to centralization he ought to vote for it. 

The gentleman closes his remarks with an appeal to the 
friends of the administration to stop the war but save the 
Union. If our armies are withdrawn from the territory 
claimed by the rebel leaders, the war will be stopped un¬ 
doubtedly, but the Union will be divided. South of the 
Ohio and Potomac there will be another government, practi¬ 
cally recognized by us and formally acknowledged by all other 
nations. But, on the other hand, if the rebels can be induced 
to disband their armies, the war will cease and the Union be 
preserved. Now, sir, in imitation of the honorable gentle¬ 
man, I will close my remarks with an appeal to him and his 
political associates to aid in the accomplishment of this latter 
result. Do you inquire what you can do ? Go and proclaim 
to the deluded supporters of Jefferson Davis two simple truths. 
First, that the United States does not now and never did seek 
their subjugation, but only their submission to law. Tell 
them that the first election of Mr. Lincoln did not involve 
any interference with slavery in the States where it then ex¬ 
isted, and that subsequent emancipation originated not in the 
virtue of the government but in the necessities created by 
their own misconduct. If slavery was their motive for sepa- 


SPEECHES. 


85 


ration, the removal of that motive by the removal of slavery 
was our necessity. Whatever has been constitutionally done 
in that direction by Congressional, State, or executive action 
must remain unless it is undone by authority equally consti¬ 
tutional. That they must submit to the Constitution in all 
its parts, including that which authorizes its own amendment. 
Second, tell them that, while the United States asks nothing 
more from them than submission to law, it will accept of 
nothing less, and, above all, it will not consent to its own 
dismemberment and the creation of two governments between 
the Gulf and the Lakes. Tell them that the people have the 
will and the power to sustain this purpose of the govern¬ 
ment. Though they are accustomed to spend their money 
with economy and do not wantonly shed their blood, they 
have made up their minds, from high convictions of duty, to 
bear with patience whatever loss and suffering the execution 
of this purpose may entail. Tell them that, while the gov¬ 
ernment and people are thus determined, they are not vindic¬ 
tive. They do not raise the black flag, but constantly tender 
to the deluded masses pardon and protection. Go tell these 
two facts to the insurgent people, hitherto misinformed and 
misled by your untruthful allegations, and you will see them 
begin to drop away from their reckless leaders, and with the 
blossoms of the coming spring will come the sweeter blessings 
of peace. 


86 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


ANNUAL ADDRESS 

AT THE NEW YORK STATE FAIR. 


Delivered September 14, 1865. 


Gentlemen of the New York State Agricultural 
Society, —In the last verses of the eighth chapter of Genesis, 
we are informed that, after the waters of the flood had sub¬ 
sided, God said in his heart, “ I will not again curse the ground 
any more for man’s sake“ while the earth remaineth, seed¬ 
time and harvest . . . shall not cease.” 

Excepting the assurance of a future state of existence,— 
of “ sweet fields beyond the swelling flood, dressed in living 
green,” we have no revelation from our heavenly Father 
more precious than this. It is not only a promise of food and 
raiment,—a guarantee against our old and ever-threatening 
enemies, hunger and cold,—but an assurance of the mental en¬ 
joyment derivable from the seasons named. Every year we 
are permitted to expect the exhilarating pleasure of seeing the 
grass come up and the trees leaf out in the spring, and the 
deep satisfaction of knowing, as we enjoy the dreamy days of 
glorious autumn, that a generous harvest has been garnered, 
against the severities of the coming winter. 

But, while we are thus felicitating ourselves with this most 
gracious purpose of the Deity, we find the scepticism of our 
own observations and experience stealing into our hearts and 
undermining our Biblical faith. We see vast regions of coun¬ 
try, in latitudes otherwise agreeable to human existence, en- 




ADDRESS. 


87 


tirely waste, as if still cursed of God. Nothing grows. In 
other sections considered susceptible of cultivation, large por¬ 
tions are barren hills or sour swamps. And when, avoiding the 
desert, hill, and swamp, we have secured, in some favored spot, 
a fertile farm, we are not at all sure of a seed-time or harvest. 

Sometimes the winter overlaps the seed-time. Sometimes a 
successful planting is destroyed by a June frost. Sometimes 
we have drouth : all summer long the heavens are dry; the 
earth is parched, the wells give out, the spring and brook dry 
up, the leaf withers on the tree, and the grass burns down 
into the roots. Again, the fields are drowned. The windows 
of heaven are opened and the rain comes, unsolicited, unwel¬ 
come, unrelenting. Sometimes a hostile insect, hitherto un¬ 
known to entomologists, or, if known, irresistible by any 
discovered mode of warfare, robs us of a harvest just waiting 
for the sickle. Sometimes a subtle disease fastens upon a 
plant of universal culture and turns the whole crop into ashes 
in the very baskets of the harvester. Sometimes the thistle 
and the daisy triumph in their contests for the meadow, and 
sometimes the unripe corn is destroyed by the “ surly blasts of 
chill November,” on an unseasonable raid. 

It is not at all strange that the disappointed husbandman, 
without intending to impugn the constancy and goodness of 
our Father which art in heaven, sometimes fears that the 
beneficent intention uttered, according to revelation, in the 
heart of God, when he saw the desolation wrought by the 
flood, has in some way, like human intentions, been changed 
or lessened by time. 

I have looked to the learned doctors of divinity for an 
explanation. They inform us that there has never been a 
total failure of crops nor a universal famine since the flood ; 
that, in some parts of the world, food sufficient, if properly 
distributed, has been produced to support the human family; 
and so they think the promise is unbroken. The explanation 


88 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


of the commentators is not satisfactory, at least to me. It 
seems hardly a fulfilment of the broad, clear language in 
which God has 'embodied the purpose of his heart, to say 
the Californian may have dinner if he orders it from China, 
and the Patagonian breakfast if he goes to the Cape of Good 
Hope to get it. It is also inconsistent with the theory, now 
somewhat prevalent, that the food best adapted to the nurture 
and health of man is that which the country around him is 
capable of producing. Instead of cutting down the promise 
to an occasional seed-time and partial harvest, I think we 
have a right to expect, nay, to claim, both from the words of 
the Bible and the known goodness of the Creator, a perfect 
seed-time and a never-failing harvest. And, if so, we must 
ascribe our imperfect realization to our imperfect knowledge 
of agricultural science. This, like all divine promises, is 
conditional. We are informed what is attainable, surrounded 
with the necessary agencies, material, and motive, and left to 
work out our possible destiny by a proper use of our great 
endowments. 

Fully believing that this is the proper interpretation of the 
Scriptures, I look forward, with undoubting faith, to the time 
when the mutations of the seasons, the habits of the plants, 
and the wants of the soil will be so well understood that a 
failure of the crops, except through the negligence of the 
agriculturist himself, will be a very rare occurrence; and when 
industrial machinery will be brought to such a degree of ex¬ 
cellence that, instead of the long and exhaustive day’s work, 
five hours per day (the period fixed as best adapted to the 
human constitution) of pleasant and healthful exercise will be 
all that will be needed to conduct as large a farm as any one 
man ought to be allowed to own. 

How can the farmer, it may well be asked, protect himself 
against drought and rain and untimely frost? must he not 
always plant in faith and reap in apprehension ? 


ADDRESSES. 


89 


Suppose he could foreknow the weather? Suppose his 
almanac could tell him all its moods and changes, as it does 
now the changes of the moon or the coming of the eclipses! 
Could he not, by a careful selection and adaptation of crops 
and fields by temporary drainage or irrigation, protect him¬ 
self, in a great measure, against a wet or dry season ? Could 
he not, by early or late planting, as the case might require, 
avoid spring and fall frosts ? Could he not, by choosing the 
hardiest and most easily-ripened plants, and even, to some ex¬ 
tent, by divers temporary expedients, accommodate his farm 
to a short season ? 

But the weather is fickle; who can know it ? Fickle as it 
may appear, it is as much under the dominion of law, as 
much subject to rule-regulation, as the stars whose cycles we 
calculate to a second. The great motive-power in nature is 
uniform in its action. There is no exception in favor of the 
weather. It is not true, in the popular acceptation of the 
words, that “ the wind bloweth where it listeth.” It blows 
when it is impelled by forces as immutable as the Creator of 
them. There is method in the madness of the storm, in the 
courses of the wind, in the fall of the rain, and the bite of the 
frost. “The spirits of the vasty deep,” and “the prince of 
the powers of the air,” are obedient to rules, ordained when 
the foundations of the earth were laid. If the variations of 
the weather are in accordance with prescribed and uniform 
rules, are they so deep and mysterious as to be beyond the 
endowments of man? Such advancement in meteorological 
science may seem improbable to many, but certainly not more 
so than did the knowledge already acquired to our incredu¬ 
lous fathers a few centuries ago. Even now the science has 
progressed much farther than is generally supposed. Nearly 
the whole world is sentinelled with observatories. Extensive 
atmospheric statistics have been collected and are now in the 
libraries of the learned. They are studied to-day by many 

7 


90 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


profound and inquisitive minds. A few rules are already 
established; more are foreshadowed. In the mean while the 
observations go on. Why, while we are doubting and in¬ 
quiring who shall reveal to us this hidden truth, the mariner 
has so far learned the ways of the wind, the most uncertain 
of all the ethereal elements, that he sets his sails by his nau¬ 
tical almanac, almost as trustingly as the helm submits to 
the guidance of the needle. 

Who, you inquire, shall tell us of the weather ? On College 
Hill, overlooking this beautiful city, in an unimposing build¬ 
ing standing off by itself, and looking inside and out like 
Ericsson’s monitor of war, sits a gentleman unknown to, or at 
least uncared for by, the busy multitude, modest and solitary, 
the hermit of the heavens. He is a great observer and gathers 
up all the phenomena of earth. Not a breath of air, nor a 
streak of lightning, nor the dim trembling light that other 
worlds can shed upon the mysteries of our own, escapes the 
delicacy of his instruments. In another building not far off, 
in a room dingy with gases, smoke, and vapors, with begrimed 
face and soiled hands and garments, surrounded with furnaces, 
pots, crucibles, and the “ wreck of matter” wrought by his 
own cunning hand, sits another gentleman,—old I might call 
him, countiDg only by years,—the wizard of the college. All 
day long he is busy with his enchantments. In his magic 
vessels “ the elements melt with fervent heat” and expose to 
him the subtle materials and masterly joinery of their compo¬ 
sition. These are the men who will tell us of the weather. 
Now and then their observations and discoveries are pub¬ 
lished, not to the world, for they are not yet sufficiently 
perfected for popular instruction, but to men of science. 
Similar observations and discoveries emanate from other in¬ 
stitutions. At length some genius, or visionary theorist, as 
he is often called, educes from this accumulated learning some 
important principles and applies them to .many things for the 


ADDRESSES. 


91 


comfort and advancement of our race. We at once avail our¬ 
selves of the improvements, use them in our houses, shops, 
and farms, as if we had always possessed them, and, in our 
eagerness to enjoy, we do not even stop to consider that it is 
to the weary investigations of these unhonored abstractionists 
that we are indebted for the additional blessings. These quiet 
scholars are at work for us to-day. They are studying the 
“ powers of the air,” exploring the dens where the storms 
are brewed, inquiring whither the clouds scatter and why 
they “ come flying all abroad,” whence the wind cometh and 
whither it goeth. In time they will furnish the materials of 
a meteorological almanac, from which, as the farmer reads, 
straggling down through the broken lines of a whole page, 
“ expect much rain about this time,” he will as certainly 
expect it as he will the eclipses foretold in the same book. 

I refer to the importance of meteorology and its present 
and probable advancement only as an illustration and a proof 
that the promised seed-time and harvest, even to the extent of 
my liberal interpretation, is within the compass of human at¬ 
tainment. It is not, however, the only illustration and proof 
at hand. For that purpose many other branches of agricul¬ 
tural science, equally important and equally progressive, might 
be discussed. Fertilization as a science is yet in its very ten¬ 
der infancy. To be sure, wonderful and valuable discoveries 
have been made, but, wonderful and valuable as they are to 
us, to the scientific mind they are, like the western drift ob¬ 
served by Columbus, only evidence of the undiscovered world 
beyond. Many inquisitive and patient eyes are even now ex¬ 
ploring the mysteries of vegetation. The neglected scholar is 
again at work. The plant submits to his inquisition, and 
under his chemical torture each part is required to surrender 
its secrets. What offices are performed by light, warmth, and 
electricity? what minerals are sucked from the earth, what 
gases inhaled from the air ? are questions propounded by its 


92 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


insatiable tormentor. The analysis is perfect even to the 
breath of the leaf. When all its wants and conditions are 
learned, he ransacks the world for the means of supply. The 
practical public is perplexed, perhaps disgusted, with theories 
and experiments. To those walking by sight and not by fore¬ 
sight, their utility is not yet apparent. It is only by a retro¬ 
spect of several years that they are able to appreciate the 
progress made. While I do not share in the expectations of 
many, that the world will soon be startled and revolutionized 
by some great discovery in fertilization, I do look for that 
steady improvement which in a few years will not only in¬ 
crease the yield of good farms many fold and ripen their 
harvests in a much shorter period of time, but convert barren 
and waste land into beautiful and fruitful fields. Even the 
progress made in this direction during the last twenty years 
justifies this belief. The hills and swamps are doing what 
the farmer is always so unwilling to do, yielding to and 
honoring the pale-faced knights of the crucible and compost. 
Scientific farming, in spite of prejudice and ridicule, is every 
year writing its triumphs upon hitherto unproductive land, in 
letters as green as leaf and blade can paint them. A learned 
but perhaps too sanguine farmer told me, a few days ago, that 
he was expecting such discoveries in the art of fertilization 
that, before the close of the nineteenth century, Indian corn 
would not only be grown in the heart of the Great American 
Desert, but be ready for the harvest in eighty days from the 
time it was planted. This may seem extravagant, but in the 
light of science it is not impossible,—I will say, not improb¬ 
able. The great want of the desert is moisture. To obtain 
water for his people, Moses, by the direction of God, “ smote 
the rock with a rod,” while we, guided by science (which is 
only a knowledge of the directions with which all matter was 
labelled in the beginning), are unwittingly following his ex¬ 
ample. For water,—the fresh water that slakes our thirst, 


ADDRESSES. 


93 


the salt that preserves our food, the mineral that restores our 
health and sloweth age,—for the fuel that warms our dwell¬ 
ings in winter, and the light that cheers them at night, in 
imitation of the great leader of Israel, we smite the rock with 
a rod. In the early history of the world, God may have re¬ 
vealed to his inexperienced children some principles of natural 
science, and, for their good, left the acquisition of others, 
equally useful, dependent upon industry, study, and experi¬ 
ment. If water only is wanting to the fertilization of the 
desert, who shall say that its reclamation is beyond our reach ? 

In discussing this subject I have, so far, referred only to 
the professors of natural science in the various literary insti¬ 
tutions and learned associations of the country. But they 
are not the only agencies employed to forward the work. 
The Federal Government, in spite of the “ Resolutions of 
’98,” has given its aid, and since the Act of May, 1862, 
become an efficient worker in the cause. By that act the 
duties of the Department of Agriculture are twofold,—first, 
the collection and distribution of “ new and valuable seeds 
and plants;” and, second, the collection, preservation, and 
diffusion of agricultural knowledge. In the discharge of 
these duties the Department is authorized to employ, “for 
such time as their services may be needed, chemists, botanists, 
entomologists, and other persons skilled in the natural sciences 
pertaining to agriculture.” This latter clause, mixed in with 
the authority to employ clerks and laborers, as if indebted for 
its place to the artifice of some intelligent friend of agricul¬ 
ture, is by far the most important part of the bill. To that 
we are indebted for the valuable essays and learned but practi¬ 
cal discussions in the two last Reports from this Department. 
Undoubtedly the climatical distribution of new and valuable 
seeds and plants will result at once in improved and increased 
varieties of crops, but the employment of scientific men, to 
invent and theorize, experiment and discover, analyze and 


94 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


test, will not only aid in developing and perfecting all that is 
now considered possible in agriculture, but may—I can even 
say, almost certainly will—result in unfolding new principles, 
based upon present and future discoveries, by which, at a 
single bound, the science will be carried beyond a whole life¬ 
time of slow and painstaking culture. The law needs a few 
additional words. These “ skilled persons” should be per¬ 
manently instead of temporarily employed. And then, with 
a suitable building, we would have a national academy of 
natural science or an agricultural normal school. Compared 
with the money expended for seeds, the salaries of these pro¬ 
fessors would be a mere trifle. We have now a military and 
naval academy. Very large sums of money are expended— 
squandered I used to think before the war—upon these insti¬ 
tutions. Even now I sometimes wonder if a large portion of 
the military men who undertook the overthrow of our Con¬ 
stitution, government, and laws were not impelled thereto by 
motives no worse than a desire to exercise their vocation. In 
this view the disloyal soldier may be forgiven, and even re¬ 
spected, while the traitor politician should be handed down in 
shameful memory forever. But if we wisely expend so much 
for the education of men to defend the country, would it not 
be equally wise to expend a much smaller sum in aiding to 
make that country—all glorious and beautiful as it is now— 
still more worth the lives of our ablest, bravest, and best ? 

The Patent Office is another governmental agency designed 
to promote improvement. I am sorry that I feel compelled 
to criticise rather than praise it. While it has accomplished 
great good, it is the source, it must be admitted, of great mis¬ 
chief. It certainly needs reformation, not only in its adminis¬ 
tration, but in its organization. A great many people are of 
the opinion that, if it cannot be reformed, it ought to be 
abolished. But it can be reformed. Certainly we can con¬ 
trive some way to stimulate and reward the inventive talent 


ADDRESSES. 


95 


of the country without not only robbing the world of new 
discoveries for so long a time, and stealing from it what was 
before its own, but, at the same time, bewildering, deluding, 
and swindling it with so much that is worthless. As at 
present organized and administered, it does, indeed, stimulate 
to invention some, but to chicane, litigation, and corruption a 
great deal more. It has been called, with much propriety, 
the office of monopoly and fraud. While it withholds from 
the people, except at extortionary prices, the improvements 
they need, it floods the country with “ patent rights/’ worth¬ 
less except to cheat with. “ Patent-right peddlers,” pressing 
their “ territory” by States, counties, and towns upon the 
simple and unwary, swarm the land. While large fortunes 
are thus made by men not quite bad enough to go to the peni¬ 
tentiary, meritorious inventors are too often forsaken, and 
their seed begging bread. The money out of which the peo¬ 
ple are thus annually defrauded would half pay their national 
taxes. This office thrusts its pestiferous fingers into every 
man’s business. What Sydney Smith said of English taxation 
may, with equal aptness, be said of American patents : every¬ 
thing is patented: the buckle that fastens your shoe, and the 
tie that adorns your neck. When you go from your patented 
toilet to business, it is only to encounter patents at every 
turn. The shop is filled with patent tools, the store with 
patent goods, the apothecaries with patent drugs, and the 
law-office with patent suits. When you return at evening, 
you approach your dwelling through a patent gate, open your 
door by a patent latch, seat yourself in a patent chair by a 
patent stove, read your paper by a patent lamp, draw your 
boots with a patent jack and retire to sleep on a patent bed, 
supported by a patent bedstead. When weary and sick of 
patents, you can be doctored to death by patent medicines, 
wheeled off in a patent hearse, and buried in a patent coffin. 
I cannot stop now to discuss remedies for all this mischief. 


96 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


I only remark in passing that it is a great mistake to suppose 
that invention can only be stimulated by mercenary motives. 
On the contrary, it may be assumed that genius is rarely 
avaricious. It is rather like the spring on the hill-side, 
which waters and beautifies the valley below, but leaves its 
own bank unfertilized. It seeks its reward rather in the 
gratitude and admiration of the world than in its money. 

Agricultural schools are another agency. They have been 
too recently established in this country and are still too few 
in number to exhibit, as yet, their ultimate usefulness. It is 
less than ten years, I think, since the oldest, originating in 
the untiring efforts of that enlightened and zealous friend of 
agriculture, the venerable secretary of your society, was estab¬ 
lished. Of course, all young farmers cannot be educated in 
these institutions, but those who are will become missionaries 
by example, “ burning and shining lights” to the neighbor¬ 
hood in which they locate. While by scientific culture they 
will derive the largest possible revenue from the farm, they 
will also from love of refinement, order, and beauty adorn it 
for a home. They will have learned how to do, what ought 
to be the purpose of every man, whether in city, town, or 
country, by lawn and tree, and shrub and flower, by books 
and papers and works of art, to make home the most attrac¬ 
tive place on earth to them and all who share it with them. 

And last to be named, though almost first in importance, 
are the agricultural societies, with their State, county, and 
township fair, and their national and international industrial 
exhibitions. These societies have undertaken to be a medium 
of communication between the theorists and practitioners. 
They undertake to collect all that has been invented, dis¬ 
covered, or imagined, and take it down to the farm for inspec¬ 
tion, trial, adoption, or rejection; returning freighted with 
the knowledge, experience, and suggestions of the farmer,— 
what crops and inventions have failed and what succeeded; 


ADDRESSES. 


97 


what hostile insects and plants have appeared, and what 
remedies have been found efficacious. It is their business 
to collect and disseminate agricultural information and stimu¬ 
late and reward improvements. See to it, friends of the cause, 
that your fairs are not perverted to other and unworthy pur¬ 
poses. Remember that “ fantastic parades,” “ games of ball,” 
“ Indian foot-races,” and other similar exhibitions often ad¬ 
vertised to come off on the fair-ground, may distract as well 
as attract the crowd. Such exhibitions will undoubtedly 
enlarge your audiences. Truant boys might be attracted to 
the school-room by the hand organ and monkey, but would 
you thus advance the cause of juvenile education? When 
you bring your fairs down to the appreciation and entertain¬ 
ment of the idle, careless, and vicious, you have got them too 
far down to subserve the noble cause in behalf of which they 
originated. 

Thus far I have been speaking of our capabilities, and, 
incidently, of the means employed for their development. I 
have endeavored to inspire the hope that a double crop, a 
shorter time of growth, the halving of labor, and a practical 
foreknowledge of the weather, all lie within our capacity 
Belief must precede effort, if success is to follow it. 

In the few moments left, allow me to press upon your at¬ 
tention a single measure calculated, if adopted, to promote the 
advancement I have ventured to anticipate. To do this was 
my sole purpose in accepting your kind invitation. 

I have long been of the opinion that the creation of a 
professorship of agricultural science in every college in the 
country was demanded, both by our educational and industrial 
interests. Of course I do not contemplate a system of practi¬ 
cal farming. That, like law, medicine, and divinity, must 
be taught in schools devoted particularly to that occupation. 
But theoretic agriculture, with so much of mechanics and the 
natural sciences as are particularly connected with it, could be 


98 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


grouped together and taught the class by a single professor 
without lessening the fuller instructions in other departments, 
from which some portion of this course was abstracted. The 
graduates of these institutions, so far from going into the 
world, as they too often do now, regarding agriculture as an 
occupation of mere physical drudgery, requiring only the low¬ 
est order of mind and education, and therefore particularly to 
be shunned, would carry with them, into whatever calling 
they chose to enter, a profound respect for this. Many, un¬ 
doubtedly, would be attracted to the farm, but if none were, 
the learning would not be wholly lost. An educated man 
moving through life is like the light of an evening traveller, 
opening up to wayside loiterers many objects of consideration 
and thought that would otherwise escape their attention. 

From the learning and research of the professors them¬ 
selves the country would derive very great advantage. To 
their own investigations they would add the discoveries and 
improvements of the whole world. The very valuable, but 
to the general public unreadable, volumes of statistics, sug¬ 
gestions, and experience, published by various associations 
and individuals, would come to them for digestion and con¬ 
densation. We might expect from them many contributions 
to the agricultural literature of the country. Free from em¬ 
piricism, scientifically accurate in statement of fact, clear in 
theory, polished and simple in style, their books and essays 
would be read with interest by all classes, but with both in¬ 
terest and profit by the farmer. The farm, thus separated 
from its associated lowness, would assume a new beauty in 
the eyes of its cultivators. The same fields would be greener 
and the same blossoms sweeter. 

These theoretical professors and students might be subjects 
of mirth to practical men. Practical men always laugh at 
theorists. They forget that the rules they practise now were 
the suggestions of visionaries of an earlier day. Improve- 


ADDRESSES. 


99 


ments are always “ new-fangled notions” to old practitioners. 
They often meet the strongest opposition from those who un¬ 
derstand most thoroughly all that was known before. To an 
old lawyer there is no code so bad as a new one, and a new 
system of medicine is tartar emetic to the adherents of the old. 
The pack-horse fought the Conestoga wagon, the wagon the 
canal, the canal the railroad, and, if we ever learn to navi¬ 
gate the air, the last man to believe in it will be the railroad 
engineer who skims along the earth at the rate of a hundred 
miles an hour. 

In this proposition, I trust I have your approbation, but I 
am going to couple it with another, from which I fear very 
many will dissent. To make room for these additional studies, 
the Latin and Greek languages must be dropped from the 
college course. I know the suggestion will not be favorably 
entertained by the managers of these institutions. The play 
of Hamlet with Hamlet left out would be a very tame illus¬ 
tration of their idea of a college with these languages omitted. 
Colleges are very conservative. They stand about as they 
did two hundred years ago. It is nearly the same old cata¬ 
logue with the names of the professors and students changed. 
We laugh at the farmer who stubbornly adheres to the prac¬ 
tice of his father; but his obstinacy is nothing compared to 
the tenacity with which our college friends cling to their old 
ways. What little change is tolerated is by way of addition. 
They are like the Bourbons in one respect,—they forget noth¬ 
ing. Latin and Greek are their hereditary pets. Two years 
before admission and two or three after, must be devoted to 
their acquisition. Why ? 

Because, we are sometimes told, the New Testament was 
written in Greek and some fragments of Latin are found in 
the books of law and medicine. Students of divinity should 
therefore learn the one, and students of law and medicine the 
other. Yet no Doctor of Divinity is allowed to use his own 


100 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


translation. If he would get up a new one, changing the sen¬ 
timents or even the words of the old, he would very properly 
be driven from his pulpit as a heretic. Of what particular 
advantage is it, then, to be able to read the Scriptures in the 
original language if you must come to the old English trans¬ 
lation at last ? Certainly it cannot be worth four or five years 
of student life. To the lawyer the Latin is considered of so 
little account that the candidate for admission to practice is 
never interrogated as to his knowledge of it. An old judge 
once said, to a class undergoing examination for admission to 
the bar, that in his experience the lawyers that quoted most 
Latin wqn the fewest suits. Pedants never amount to much 
in the great rivalry of life. I cannot say how useful the dead 
languages may be considered by the medical profession, but 
the good sense of the unlearned public has long since con¬ 
cluded that nothing but quackery now needs the mystery and 
non-understandable lingo of the doctors. There is certainly 
no necessary connection between a living 'patient and a dead 
language ! 

Again, we are told, it disciplines the mind. Very well, so 
would the study of natural science. Digging a hole in the 
earth and filling it again would strengthen the muscles, but 
the same strength would be gained by spading a field and a 
bountiful harvest in addition. The study of these languages 
was originally undertaken for the use that could be made of 
them subsequent to their acquisition. By the enlargement and 
perfection of our own language and the exhaustive translation 
of these, that original purpose, except to a few professional 
scholars, has been entirely removed. The labor of acquisition 
is now urged as a motive for their retention. They lose their 
value (so the argument concedes) the moment they are mas¬ 
tered. You persist in a diet no longer nutritious, merely to 
exercise the muscles of mastication. If the two courses of 
study were equally efficacious in mental discipline, should we 


ADDRESSES. 


101 


not, by all means, choose that which promised most advan¬ 
tages in after-life ? But are they equal even in this respect ? 
Can it be possible that the mere shelving on the intellect a 
quantity of ugly words will invigorate, quicken, and inspire 
it, like the study of a science that, beginning with the pebble 
on the shore, opens up to us the vast ocean of wonderful and 
intricate truth with which we are surrounded? You might 
as well look for increased warmth by emptying your grate of 
its glowing coals and refilling it with cinders. 

Still, again, we are told that the study of these languages 
is necessary to the proper understanding of our own,—im¬ 
parting, as is alleged, a more profound acquaintance, not only 
with its philosophy and structure but with the original force 
and meaning of a large number of transferred words and 
imitative terminologies. There are only three mistakes in 
the first branch of this argument. First, it is a mistake to 
suppose that the philosophy of the language is so very intri¬ 
cate ; second, that there is no shorter way to acquire it; and, 
third, that a knowledge of it is of such vast importance. 
While there are many rules to which the language conforms, 
it must be admitted that much of it is patchwork, conven¬ 
tional and arbitrary. The volume of it has too many ele¬ 
mental sources to allow the philosophy of Latin or Greek, 
although perhaps traceable in it, to control its ever-swelling 
current. You might as well attempt to follow a cowpath 
with a compass as an unbroken thread of philosophy through 
the hidden mazes of the English tongue by the light of Latin 
or Greek. At the best it is only a kind of evanescent learn¬ 
ing, too refined for appreciation and too volatile to keep. A 
single criticism from the pen of some linguistic historian 
would impart all the knowledge of this kind that is important 
for the general student to possess. It is also a mistake to 
suppose (as the second branch of this argument does) that it 
is important for a writer or speaker to know the original 


102 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


meaning of an adopted word, when that meaning has been 
dropped in the transfer. That may be valuable to the lin¬ 
guistic antiquary, but not to the mass of educated men. They 
need words that not only embody their thoughts but com¬ 
municate them to others. All beyond that is pedantry, a 
hinderance rather than a help. The whole argument is too 
feeble to justify the imposition of so much labor. 

The fact that these languages are replete with learning and 
literature is also urged in favor of their acquisition. It ought 
to be a satisfactory answer with a sensible man, to be able to 
say that all this learning and literature has been translated 
many times over. Not a fact nor thought remains. Do you 
answer that the translations are not equal in style and power 
to the originals? Your answer is an impeachment of the 
English language, an argument for its abandonment altogether 
in favor of a better, and is based upon an error in fact. As 
a general thing, there is nothing in these languages, nor in 
any language, inexpressible in English. It is quite possible 
that in these, as in all other learned languages, there is some 
composition so high-wrought and rhapsodical as to defy trans¬ 
lation. The consolation is, that such exquisite scholarship is 
not indispensable to the happiness of the world. In taking 
leave of this subject, permit me to add that the adoption of 
my suggestion involves no additional expense. Endowed col¬ 
leges already exist. A change of professors is all that is 
needed. 

Suppose we approve the suggestion, you may inquire, How 
can its adoption be secured with the literati of the country 
against it ? Agitation is the great American remedy for all 
the ills that government and institutions are heir to. Clamor, 
you may reply, is plebeian, undignified, unscholarly. Possibly 
so, but it is effectual, notwithstanding. Witches, it is said, 
are vulnerable only to silver bullets, but paper balls are most 
fatal to veteran error. It should be avoided only by the 


ADDRESSES. 


103 


friends of a bad cause. If the retention of these languages 
is a great folly, as I have supposed, if their place could be 
advantageously filled by the study of agricultural science, 
discussion will effect the reform. The wrong side has been 
most ably advocated already. It takes two or three dozen 
orations per year, by the professors and students of these lan¬ 
guages, to keep themselves convinced of their utility. The 
other side is rarely heard. 

Standing, as I do, in sight and almost in hearing of my 
ever-honored Alma Mater , and in the presence of that emi¬ 
nent scholar and Christian gentleman,—my early and un¬ 
changing friend, the professor of languages in Hamilton Col¬ 
lege,—I have uttered these sentiments with much reluctance, 
and only from a regretful sense of duty. 

Public attention is just now too much absorbed with na¬ 
tional matters to consider minor reforms. In a measure the 
country is starting anew. Reconstruction is the word of the 
day. To be sure, we have subdued the rebellion and hastened 
to forgive its guilty authors, even before this oblivious turf 
had begreened the graves of their low-lying victims; but 
many and important questions remain to be discussed and 
settled. Will the rebels forgive us for their defeat and hu¬ 
miliation? If a full partnership in the preserved brother¬ 
hood of States is proffered them, will it be accepted in good 
faith, and the power so conferred be used for the perpetuation 
and prosperity of the Union, and the discharge of its obliga¬ 
tions to its widows, soldiers, and creditors? If not, can we 
constitutionally withhold it ? What shall be the status of the 
freedmen? Shall they be re-enslaved, colonized, or enfran¬ 
chised ? What shall be done with our national debt ? Shall 
it be taxed, scaled, repudiated, or paid ? What shall be done 
about the Monroe doctrine ? Shall we allow our poor sister 
republic, the remnant of our own pro-slavery greed, to be 
absorbed by a vassal for the usurping ruler of France? These 


104 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


are questions now pressing upon the country for early action. 
If, under such circumstances, I have succeeded in fastening 
the attention of a few thoughtful friends of agriculture to 
the propriety of collegiate reconstruction, I have accomplished 
all I hoped to do when I consented to address you. 


SPEECHES. 


105 


SPEECH 

ON THE BILL TO EXTEND THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE IN THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO PEOPLE OF COLOR. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , January 10 , 1866 . 


Mr. Scofield said: 

Mr. Speaker, —The colored population of the United 
States is now about five millions. That is nearly double the 
population of all New England, fully one-seventh of the entire 
population of the United States, and almost double the num¬ 
ber that carried this country through a seven years’ war with 
the greatest military power in the world. 

What shall be done with these five million people? Colo¬ 
nize them ? Where and when ? To Africa ? Liberia is the 
most desirable and accessible part of that country, but that 
colony is now more than forty years old, and its emigrant 
population is only seven or eight thousand. Some ten thou¬ 
sand, in all, have been taken there, but from twenty to thirty 
per cent, of that number died during the period of acclima¬ 
tion. To land five millions more of men, women, and chil¬ 
dren upon this miasmatic coast, without houses, roads, or im¬ 
proved lands, would be murder by the million. The original 
kidnapping and importation of slaves to this country was a 
very merciful and Christian business compared with such an 
exodus as this. But if we were wicked enough to embark in 
such a cruel enterprise, we could not accomplish it. Calcu¬ 
late the expense, to say nothing of suffering, of collecting the 

8 




106 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


entire population of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and taking 
them to the Atlantic coast; compute the expense of transpor¬ 
tation for such a nation across the Atlantic ; and to these sums 
add the cost of houses, roads, clearings, stock, and temporary 
maintenance in that unhealthy climate, and you will have a 
bill too great for the resources of the country, even if we were 
not in debt. But to gather up and colonize the scattered and 
unwilling colored population, almost equal in numbers, would 
be a much greater undertaking. 

Colonize them in Mexico, then, it is said. The expense 
might be a few millions less, but still far beyond the present 
resources and strained credit of the government. Other obsta¬ 
cles would intervene. Mexico has eight million five hundred 
thousand population now. Where could you thrust five mil¬ 
lions more in that uninviting land of endless war ? Beside, 
if this vast population is as undesirable as is represented, they 
would be nearly as offensive to the people of Mexico as it is 
said they ought to be to us, and our unchristian purpose would 
be defeated by the kindred prejudices of that nation. Colo¬ 
nize them, then, in some of our Western Territories! The 
expense and injustice of this undertaking would be consider¬ 
ably less, but it would be just no colonization at all. They 
would soon be surrounded by our advancing millions, and left 
in the very heart of the country from which you desire to 
expel them. 

The whole scheme of colonization is so far beyond the pres¬ 
ent ability of the government, so destructive to the productive 
interest of the country, so inhuman and unjust towards the 
people whose unpaid labor has added so much to the wealth 
and comfort of the nation, and whose valor and patriotism 
have helped to sustain it in its late life-struggle, and so im¬ 
practicable and impossible, even if it was right, that its advo¬ 
cates can scarcely expect to be credited with sense and sincerity 
at the same time. The thoughtless may be sincere, but the 


SPEECHES. 


107 


knowing ones can only design to distract the attention of the 
people from the consideration of other propositions and neces¬ 
sities. And if colonization were practicable, what would be¬ 
come of the old theory urged by pro-slavery divines and poli¬ 
ticians, who are for the most part the present advocates of 
colonization, that white men could not labor in the warm lati¬ 
tudes of the South? Do they propose now, in sending olf the 
only possible laborers there, according to their theory, to aban¬ 
don the culture of the South altogether? or do they confess 
they were only trying to cheat the people into the support of 
a cruel institution by false logic then, as they are trying to 
delude them with false theories now? If you mean to try 
colonization, why not begin it at once? The longer you delay 
the more numerous will be these people, and the more deter¬ 
mined to stay. Bring in your bill and let us see the details. 
How many billions of new bonds must be put upon the mar¬ 
ket, how large an army will be asked, how many ships will 
be needed, and how many years will it take to effect the ex¬ 
pulsion ? What, in the mean while, is the world to do for 
cotton ? What shall be done with the unwilling and the fugi¬ 
tives? Will you hunt them with bloodhounds, or procure 
the services of Buchanan’s old marshals? Give us at once 
your bill of particulars. 

If colonization is found impracticable, will you try to re¬ 
enslave them ? I suppose not. The blacks are now too intel¬ 
ligent, too self-reliant, and too spirited to submit again to the 
oppressor. It is feared by some that the Northern wing of the 
Democratic party will again yield its neck, not yet quite free 
from the old callous, to the yoke of the Southern master; but 
the negro never will. Besides, the great Republican party, 
strong in number but stronger in its convictions of right, will 
always stand between the weak and oppression. I know it is 
said that that party may become powerless by the defection of 
President Johnson. It is alleged by the opposition, and feared 


108 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


even by some of our friends, that when the grim leaders of 
the rebellion shall re-embrace their old party allies, a Presi¬ 
dent placed in power by Republican trust and Republican 
votes, forgetful of an example that consigned two Presidents 
to private life and public infamy, will be present to celebrate 
the reunion of these pardoned principals in crime, with sus¬ 
pected accessories before the fact. I do not speculate as to 
what the President may do. You never know what a single 
man suddenly elevated to power may do. “Put not your 
trust in princes” is a warning that will apply to all men in 
power. I never could guess the secret motives that induced 
Tyler and Fillmore to betray the Whigs. I have often heard 
that a person who stands on the brink of Niagara, or climbs 
to the top of a lofty tower, feels an almost irresistible impulse 
to jump off. It may be some such unnatural sensation that 
prompted these two gentlemen to leap from their high emi¬ 
nence into the terrible obscurity below. I cannot believe that 
Mr. Johnson will follow these unseductive examples. But if 
he should, he alone will be broken. The tower will stand, 
but his crippled limbs can never again ascend it. The ranks 
of the Republican army would not even waver. Its con¬ 
tractors and sutlers would fly, to be sure ; but without the 
loss of a man or a gun, it would still stand, the friend of the 
oppressed and the terror of the oppressor. Whatever indi¬ 
viduals may do, be assured the Republican party will adhere 
to its principles, and in its principles will certainly triumph. 
The Whig party could hardly be said ever to have been in a 
settled majority of the people, and yet it stood the betrayal of 
two of its Presidents, and only broke down when it surren¬ 
dered to the slave power in the Baltimore convention of 1852. 

I conclude, therefore, that colonization and re-enslavement 
are both impossible. “ Then extermination awaits them.” So 
we are told. The census, however, tells a different story. 
These tables show that the black population multiply quite as 


SPEECHES. 


109 


fast as the white. It is the large additions of the white ele¬ 
ment from abroad that gives that race an apparent advantage. 
I know that these people are poor. For long, dark years 
their industry has gone to swell the overgrown estates of their 
present persecutors. But they have been accustomed to a life 
of deprivation. Their wants are few ; and in a country where 
labor is high and land and food are cheap they cannot waste 
away. I know it is thought that this rapid increase is due 
to the mercenary care of the master. The more children he 
could raise for the market, the greater his estate. This is 
true only of a few of the more Northern States. Breeding was 
not encouraged in the planting States farther south. The 
overseer’s task was inconsistent with the duties of maternity. 
The services of the mother were worth more than her off¬ 
spring. The life of the slave was graduated by the price of 
cotton, and, as a general rule, it would pay to use him up in 
seven years; and whatever would pay in that country was 
practised. Humanity was no restraint, for making a man 
into a brute makes the maker brutal. During the transition 
from bondage to freedom, in the midst of civil war and bitter 
persecution, their numbers may possibly diminish for a short 
time; but the expectation that they will become extinct has 
no foundation either in the history or characteristics of the 
race. 

In endeavoring to look fairly at this question, I have found 
no evidence upon which to rest the belief that this race is ever 
to be colonized, re-enslaved, or exterminated. I come back, 
then, to the question with which I began, What shall be done 
with them? 

“ Let them alone.” That is the answer given by a member 
of the New York Legislature when it was proposed to send 
surgeons to vaccinate the Indians who were dying of small¬ 
pox on the Reserve. “ They are a drunken, vagrant, thieving 
race,” said he; “ let them alone. The sooner they are gone 


110 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


the better for the country.” “ We cannot afford to let them 
alone,” said the member in reply; “ they spread the infection 
through the whole surrounding country, and we* have only 
the choice to administer relief or suffer and die with them.” 
Neither can we afford to let five millions of population, who 
are forever to remain in our midst, increasing as we increase, 
sink down into hopeless ignorance, degradation, and vice. If 
we do, our own race will certainly grade down to them. The 
more we degrade these people the lower we sink ourselves. 
The ignorant white people have been made to believe that the 
elevation of the negro is equivalent to their debasement. The 
reverse is true. The more we improve this unfortunate race, 
the higher we raise our own. Human influence is not con¬ 
fined by a sharp embankment of rank or' condition. It over¬ 
flows to adjacent ranks, corrupting or purifying them as it is 
itself corrupt or pure. All classes in society are elevated 
where there is no degraded class. It is the interest, therefore, 
of every white man that these people should be educated in 
morals, skilled industry, and letters. Every dollar expended 
for this purpose will economize losses by unskilled labor, by 
riots, theft, and poor rates more than tenfold. I am not now 
advocating the cause of this race, however meritorious it may 
be. I do not base the necessity of their improvement upon 
any claim of their own. It does not at all impair my argu¬ 
ment to concede the truth of all the charges preferred against 
them, even by their most unscrupulous accusers. Suppose that 
their minds are as weak, and their proclivities to vagrancy 
and vice as strong, as the life-long despoilers of their earnings 
allege (admitting at the same time my premises that they can¬ 
not be sent abroad, nor re-enslaved nor exterminated at home), 
it only makes the necessity founded in self-interest, the more 
imperative upon us in every possible way to encourage their 
improvement. 

I submit to the House that the cheapest elevator and best 


SPEECHES. 


Ill 


moralizer for an oppressed and degraded class is to inspire 
them with self-respect, with belief in the possibility of their 
elevation. Bestow the elective franchise upon the colored 
population of this District, and you awaken the hope and 
ambition of the whole race throughout the country. Hitherto 
punishment has been the only incentive to sobriety and in¬ 
dustry furnished these people by American law. They were 
kept too low to feel disgrace, and reward was inconsistent 
with the theory of “ service owed.” Let us try now the per¬ 
suasive power of wages and protection. If colored suffrage 
is still considered an experiment, this District is a good place 
in which to try it. The same objections do not exist here 
that are urged on behalf of some of the States. No con¬ 
stitutional question intervenes. Here, at least, Congress is 
supreme. The law can be passed, and if it is found to be 
bad, a majority can repeal it. The colored race is too small 
in numbers here to endanger the supremacy of the white 
people, but large and loyal enough to counteract to some 
extent disloyal proclivities. 

Why, then, should they not vote ? 

Because, say the opposition, that is negro equality ! Equal¬ 
ity in what? In mind, stature, education, morals, or wealth? 
If these much-coveted qualities can be so easily bestowed, is 
any man mean enough to withhold them ? The objection is 
contradictory. First, he shall not vote because he is the white 
man’s inferior; and, second, because it will make him an equal. 
Do you mean by equality personal friendship and social inter¬ 
course ? Why, sir, if there is anything free in this country, 
or in any country, it is the right of each man to select his 
own associates. Companionship is free now, and will be 
then. It is your constitutional right to associate with men 
of color now, if you are so inclined, while you are not 
forced to associate with nor even speak to a white voter 
now, nor will you be with a black voter in the future. 


112 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


On the other hand, it is the constitutional right of the 
colored man to shun you now, and his right would neither 
be enlarged nor diminished by his enfranchisement. The 
equality so much dreaded and so fiercely denounced, must 
mean, if it means anything, that a colored man’s vote 
will count one towards the election of mayor and councils 
for Washington City and a white man’s vote will count 
one also, and no more. That is all. And why should 
they not be so counted? What do the mayor and councils 
have to do that none but the aristocracy can judge of their 
fitness ? Simply to mend the roads, look after the poor, and 
take care of the schools. Certainly these are subjects of deep 
interest to men of color as well as white men, and not above 
the capacity of the lowest. Colored men do the work on the 
streets; they ought to understand what repairs are needed as 
well as how to make them. You say they are poor,—they 
ought to know the poor man’s wants. You say they are igno¬ 
rant,—then give them a chance to vote against a mayor who 
loads them with school tax and deprives them of schools. In 
this District no vote is cast for President, member of Congress, 
judge of the courts, nor any officer except the administrators 
of local affairs, in which all citizens, however ignorant in 
national matters, are necessarily well informed. This action 
is not altogether an experiment. In Boston the colored people 
vote, and it is the best-governed city in the United States. 
But if it is to be considered an experiment altogether, then, 
as I said before, there is no better place in the whole country 
in which to try it than the District of Columbia. 

Again, it is said it will lead to amalgamation. This cry 
has been too often raised to alarm even the most ignorant. 
When the Democratic party endeavored to establish slavery 
in the territory acquired from Mexico, the arguments in op¬ 
position were met by the cry of “ amalgamation.” Negro 
equality was their covering cry, during their long struggle, 


SPEECHES. 


113 


through fraud and violence to force slavery on the unwilling 
people of Kansas. When slavery was abolished in the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, “ Amalgamation and negro equality” was 
bellowed by that party all over the land. When the great 
and good President issued his proclamation of emancipation, 
they again screamed “ Amalgamation and negro equality 
and the cry came still again, in terrible shrieks, when slavery 
was forever prohibited by amendment of the Constitution. 
This is a standing argument with the opposition, and is 
brought out on all occasions when any legislation is proposed 
touching the interests of the colored population. Even on so 
trifling an occasion as the passage of a law, at the last session, 
allowing these people to ride in the street-cars, a cry of horror 
was sent over the country, that I thought would startle the 
whole Anglo-Saxon race to its feet in defence of its blood, 
but I soon saw that nobody was scared, and we all now see 
that nobody was hurt. Let our sensitive friends compose 
their nerves, and try to tell us how a little enlargement of the 
elective franchise, over small and purely local matters in this 
District, will result in marriage between the two races. It is 
fright that makes you mistake a ballot for a billet-doux. It 
cannot be possible that any man of common sense can bring 
himself to believe that marriages between any persons, much 
less between white and colored people, will take place because 
a colored man is allowed to drop a little bit of paper in a box, 
thereby intimating who he considers the fittest person to be 
mayor of this city. It is too trifling for argument. 

We are again told that their average ability is below that 
of the white race. How do you know that? The colored 
man has never exhibited equal ability, to be sure, but he 
has never had equal opportunities. The forbidding statutes of 
the South attest the capacity of the negro. If they really 
believed his mind was so feeble, why bind it with such heavy 
chains? If he was incapable of learning, why prohibit it 


114 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


with the penitentiary ? Their theories proved he was weak, 
but their legislation acknowledged he was strong. They de¬ 
based him by law to fit him for slavery, and justified slavery 
because he was debased. So in this District the withholding 
opportunities of improvement is justified on the ground of his 
inferiority, and his inferiority is shown by his lack of im¬ 
provement. But suppose the white race is superior, does it 
follow that the inferior race should be deprived of any au¬ 
thoritative mode of making its wants known to the govern¬ 
ment? If mind is to be made the test of suffrage, a great 
many noisy declaimers against the negro will lose their votes. 
As a general rule, the men least fitted to vote are the warmest 
advocates of exclusion. They apprehend, with much reason, 
that they may be distanced in the rack if the black man is not 
forced to carry weight. Such men should beware how they 
advocate a theory that would jeopardize their own votes if 
made universal. But it is further said that whatever their 
capacity, they are at least uneducated now. That would be 
but a short-lived objection if true, and not solely applicable 
to people of color. But it is not true of the largest portion 
of the colored people in this District. Nearly all of them 
can read, and the scholarship of many is of a very high order. 
The whole objection is easily obviated by an educational 
qualification. 

Another objection, very much relied upon, is that a majority 
of the white population here are opposed to it. A prominent 
man charged with a high crime in Pennsylvania alleged that 
the hostility and prejudice of the people in the county where 
he was indicted would deprive him of a fair trial, and asked 
the Legislature to grant him a change of venue. The people 
of that county remonstrated, and submitted to the Legislature 
that they were the fittest persons to try him, because they knew 
he was guilty. If the people here were generally consenting 
to this enlargement of the franchise, its necessity would be less 


SPEECHES. 


115 


apparent. It is because the negro is hated in this city, and 
justice denied him by prejudiced officials, that his vote is 
necessary for his own protection. Every vote against him at 
this pretended election was an argument in his favor. I know 
that the prejudices, erroneous sentiments, and even vices of the 
people should be somewhat regarded in legislation, and that 
vested wrongs supposed to be vested rights should be divested 
very slowly. But what less can we do in this direction than 
is proposed to be done by this bill,—namely, to bestow the 
elective franchise upon a handful of men who, as a body, are 
intelligent, sober, peaceable, and industrious, and in a District 
where only local officers are chosen, and over which our right 
to legislate cannot be questioned. It must be opposed, not 
upon the ground that it is going too fast or granting too much 
at first, but upon the ground that in that direction no step 
should be taken,—nothing granted now, nor forever; that this 
is exclusively a white man’s government and the colored man 
is his slave. This is a rebel heresy entirely exploded by the 
war. We are coming back to the doctrine of our fathers. In 
the Continental Congress they asserted that “all men are 
created free and equal.” They subsequently made the Con¬ 
stitution to accord with this sentiment, and for forty years, 
and as long as they lived to administer it, negroes were allowed 
to vote in all the old States except, perhaps, South Carolina. 
Both the precept and practice of our fathers refute the allega¬ 
tion that this is exclusively a white man’s government. If 
we cannot now consent to so slight a recognition, as proposed 
by this bill, of the great underlying theory of our govern¬ 
ment, as declared and practised by our fathers, we are thrown 
back upon that new and monstrous doctrine that the five mil¬ 
lions of our colored population and their posterity forever 
have no rights that a white man is bound to respect. 

Who pronounces this crushing sentence? The political 
South; and what is this South ? The Southern master and 


116 


GLEXXI W. SCOFIELD. 


his Northern minion. Have these people wronged the South ? 
Have they filled it with violence, outrage, and murder? No, 
sir : they are remarkably gentle, patient, and respectful. Have 
they despoiled its wealth or diminished its grandeur? No, 
sir; their unpaid toil has made the material South. They 
removed the forests, cleared the fields, built the dwellings, 
churches, colleges, cities, highways, railroads, and canals. 
Why, then, does the South hare and persecute these people? 
Because it has wronged them. Injustice always hates its 
victim. They are forced to look to the North for justice. 
And what is the North? Not the latitude of frosts: not 
Hew England and the States that border on the lakes, the 
Mississippi, and the Pacific. The geographical is lost in the 
political meaning of the word. The North, in a political 
sense, means justice, liberty, and union, and in the order in 
which I name them. Jefferson defined this ** North** when he 
wrote, “ all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator 
with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness.” This North has no geographi¬ 
cal boundaries. It embraces the friends of freedom in every 
quarter of this great republic. Many of the bravest cham¬ 
pions. like our still unstolen Republican President, hail from 
the geographical South. The North, that did not fear the 
slave p3wer in its prime, in the day of its political strength 
and patronage, when it commanded alike the nation and the 
mob. and for the same cruel purpose, will not be intimidated 
by its expiring maledictions around this capital The North 
must pas this bill, to vindicate its sincerity and its courage. 
The slave power has already learned that the North is terri¬ 
ble in war and forgiving and gentle in peace : let its crushed 
and mangled victims learn from the passage of this bill 
that the justice of the North, unlimited by lines of latitude, 
unlimited by color or race, slumbereth not. 


SPEECHES. 


117 


SPEECH 

05 B.ZOO 55TB. UCTK* 5. 


iM&vzrvi Vk H?/hJ 0 i of Hpnten^ztxvis!, April 2S, 1*66. 


The House being in the committee of the whole on the 
state of the Union, Ms. Scofikt.d aid: 

Mb. Speaker —What is die whole aunt of dnbpl 
population in the Sxitherc Stares ? I do not include in this 
inquiry persons who have been stigmatized as ** sympathizers^ 
or " ct>pp*3heads.~ much less any ocher portion of the Demo¬ 
cratic party, bat only those who sought to divide the coantry 
into two republics and who now regret the iailnre of their 
enterprise. The whole amxmt of white population in the 
eleven Confederate Scares is 5.097,524. Deducting fnxn this 
amount the estimated number of loyal people in these States, 
and adding the disloyal, scattered through the other five slave 
Stares, will give the answer to my question. Making this 
deduction and addition from the meet reliable data within my 
reach. I conclude that the disloyal population in the whole 
Sooth will not exceed, if indeed it will equal, five million in 
all. 

If the eleven Confederate Scares were readmitted now (the 
Constitution and law? remaining era mended . what amount of 
representation in Congress and the Electoral College would 
thi-s five million be entitled to claim? They would certainly 
have these eleven Scares. There could hardly be a doubt about 






118 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Kentucky. For if the loyal men of that State, sustained by 
the power of the Federal army and the persuasion of Federal 
patronage, with the young disunionists absent in the South 
and the old ones disfranchised at home, could scarcely hold 
their own, what could we expect them to do when these young 
men have returned, the disfranchising laws have been swept 
away, the army removed or palsied by orders, and Federal 
patronage at least uncertain ? This would give them twenty- 
four Senators. There are four more States that belonged to 
the slave-holding class, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, 
and Missouri. Is it any stretch of probabilities to suppose 
that two more Senators will be picked up somewhere in these 
four States by the Confederate element ? I fear there will be 
more. This will give them twenty-six Senators. 

In the House of Representatives this population will have 
as large, if not larger, proportionate representation. By the 
apportionment of 1861 fifty-eight Representatives were as¬ 
signed to the eleven Confederate States. These States will be 
so districted by the hostile sentiment of their several Legisla¬ 
tures that not one true Union man can be elected. To the 
other five slave-holding States twenty-six were assigned by 
the act of 1861. If any one will take the trouble to look over 
these districts, I think he will come to the conclusion that 
even if the laws disfranchising rebels in Maryland, West Vir¬ 
ginia, and Missouri remain in force, not less than half of these 
will be controlled by the influence and votes of the late seces¬ 
sionists. This gives them seventy-one Representatives in the 
House. But even this large number must soon be increased. 
The two-fifths of the four million freedmen which were not 
counted in the representative basis of the last census must be 
counted in the census of 1870, and (other things remaining the 
same) add to that number thirteen members more; so that the 
five million disloyal population, as soon as their full power can 
be felt through the elections, will have at least twenty-six 


SPEECHES. 


119 


Senators and eighty-four Representatives and one hundred 
and ten votes in the Electoral College. This is a low calcula¬ 
tion. When we consider the earnestness, or rather, I should 
say, the fierceness, of these people, the ability, ambition, and 
courage of their leaders, we may well apprehend that the 
number will be even greater. But this number is their own,— 
legitimate and certain under the laws as they stand. Suppos¬ 
ing the entire population of the United States to be thirty-five 
million now, this five million will be just one-seventh the 
whole, but will have more than one-third the representation 
in both Houses of Congress, and more than one-third of the 
Electoral College. The same amount of loyal population at 
the North is represented by only about half that number. If 
by factions or party division among the loyalists of the coun¬ 
try they could contrive to secure one-sixth more of the repre¬ 
sentation, they would have a majority of the whole, and be 
able to control Federal legislation, elect the President, and 
distribute his patronage. 

When these States are admitted and these people come to 
have the unabridged control of this twofold representation, 
how will they desire to use it? I do not inquire how they 
possibly may use it, nor even how they now expect or intend 
to use it, but how, if unrestrained by a united North, it would 
be their interest and desire to use it. For the perpetuation of 
the Union ? I fear not. They have come back to the Union, 
we should remember, only by coercion. To them it is a forced 
bridal. They submit to it, but they do not, because they can¬ 
not, embrace it in their hearts. The soldiers maimed, wives 
widowed, and children orphaned in their bad cause, appeal to 
their leaders for the promised support, but the Union has no 
pensions for them. The fortunes invested in Confederate faith 
see no hope of realization in the Union. Hatred of the North 
and its antislavery majorities, the original motive for seces¬ 
sion, is ten times stronger now than in 1861, and is backed up 


120 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


by four billion dollars of debt, damages, and pensions, which, 
as they insist, could, in a separate government, be levied by 
an export duty upon the cotton-consuming world. The life- 
habits of these people, their love of ease and domination, their 
pride, aristocracy, wealth, and power were all the outgrowth 
of an institution which might possibly be revived in a separate 
republic, but which is forever gone in the Union. “ Confed¬ 
eracy” is a word that must long be enshrined in their hearts 
by the tender memories of their fallen kindred, but it must 
live, as they well know, in the history, traditions, and ballads 
of the Union, associated with perjury, dishonorable crime, and 
cruel war. If they should profess to love the Union, we could 
not believe them. It is so unnatural that it would be easier 
to believe they were hypocrites than that they were monsters. 

But they are neither hypocrites nor monsters. They do 
not love the Union, and do not pretend to. It is untruthful 
men of our own section that prevaricate for them. The same 
class of men that misrepresented the feelings of the North 
before the war, and thus deceived the South and goaded them 
into rebellion, now misrepresent the feelings of the South to 
deceive the North and lure it into irretrievable surrender. 
Before the war they deceived the South and betrayed the 
North; but now it is reversed, they deceive the North and 
betray the loyal South; the same perfidious breath that carried 
South the untruthful story of Northern hate, and thus prompted 
the war, comes back now with another story, equally untruth¬ 
ful, of Southern love. They tell us that the disloyal South is 
a gentle bride, impatient for the nuptials, when they know 
that she submits to them with loathing. Have they not laid 
down their arms? is the argumentative inquiry. No, sir; 
their arms were taken from them. Have they not submitted ? 
No, sir; they were defeated in battle. There is nothing in 
their past conduct nor present attitude that justifies the use of 
the word submission. Prisoners of war have been taken, but 


SPEECHES. 


121 


they were released on parol; rebel armies have been dispersed, 
bnt they have been reorganized as State militia; rebel State 
governments have been overthrown, bnt again revived and 
restored to the old possessors; and forfeitures of life and 
estates have been remitted, but that is all. Call this clemency, 
privilege, triumph, victory, what you please, but do not call 
it submission, with which it has not one shade of meaning in 
common. We do not need to call witnesses to prove that 
these people are hostile to the Union and its interests. The 
history of the human race proves it. Whoever attempts to 
prove the contrary must first show that they are unlike any 
other people whose passions, struggles, and defeats are re¬ 
corded in the annals of the world. 

But witnesses have been called,—Union generals and rebel 
generals, Union and rebel citizens, without distinction of party, 
condition, race or color,—and all support under oath the great 
historic truth, that a purpose imbibed in infancy, cherished 
and stimulated by the rostrum, press, and pulpit for a lifetime; 
upheld by large fortunes wrung from the toil of slaves, and 
sanctified by the blood of sons and kindred, has not been and 
cannot be surrendered to military orders. Such a purpose sur¬ 
renders only to time. I do not present this great truth now by 
way of reproof or condemnation of these misguided people, but 
only by way of caution and warning to ourselves. I come to 
the conclusion, therefore, that they do not desire the perpetua¬ 
tion of the Union. If we would remove all restraints and 
give them freedom of choice they would revive the Confederacy 
at once. They would take advantage of a war with Great 
Britain or France to secure their independence, and they would 
take advantage of their double representation here to promote 
such a war. If no opportunity of escape should soon offer, 
would they not still live in hopes of it and in persistent hos¬ 
tility to the country’s obligations to the soldiers, widows, or¬ 
phans, and creditors of our war, and friendly to the assumption 


122 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


of similar obligations created by themselves in the interest of 
the rebellion ? Even in advance of their own coming, a por¬ 
tion of their vast claims have reached your files. When my 
colleague [Mr. Randall] from the Democratic side proposed 
that the National faith, pledged in war, should not be broken 
in peace, there was one voice from Kentucky against it,—only 
one by count, but considering the quarter from which it came, 
multitudinous in omen. A bill has also been introduced by 
a gentleman, sometimes called the Democratic leader in this 
House, to repudiate in part the public debt under pretence of 
taxing it, in violation of the laws by which it was created. 
These cannot be regarded as the oddities of one or two men, 
but rather as impulsive confessions of imprudent scouts, too 
far in advance of the following army. The purpose will not 
be generally disclosed until the forces are arranged for its 
execution. 

I am speaking now only of the dangers that will beset the 
republic by the allowance of a representation, unfriendly to its 
prosperity and even its existence, in such disproportionate num¬ 
bers. But we should not forget that this act is also a recog¬ 
nition, as republican in form, of constitutions we have never 
seen (except that of Tennessee), and all, except those of Lincoln 
origin, under rebel supremacy. The white Unionists who have 
been looking through five dreary years of persecution, lynch¬ 
ing, and confiscation to this as their hour of deliverance, will 
find themselves betrayed into the hands of their old, unhum¬ 
bled, unrelenting tormentors. It also consigns the freedmen 
to the tyranny of old masters, not now as heretofore bribed to 
humanity by a moneyed interest in the preservation of their 
chattel estates. Twenty-five per cent., says an honorable gen¬ 
tleman who presents his back offensively to the North, as he 
makes his low obeisance South,—twenty-five per cent, have 
already perished. The wish no doubt was father to the thought 
with the masters in whose interest the declaration is made. 


SPEECHES. 


123 


These, then, are my premises. I will repeat them : 

1. There are only about five million disloyal population in 
the country. 

2. This population when fully restored to the Union— 
the Constitution and laws remaining unamended—will hold 
more than one-third of its representative power and the su¬ 
preme control of at least thirteen States. 

3. They will be interested to use that power for the division 
of the Union ; and, failing in that, for the repudiation of its 
military and financial obligations. 

Now, what is to be done? If these States are denied repre¬ 
sentation, it violates the fundamental principle of republican 
government. If allowed a double and hostile representation, 
the Union itself must be destroyed or preserved at the expense 
of another war. 

Three remedies are proposed : 

1. Disfranchise some portion of the rebels. 

2. Allow all the rebels to vote, but neutralize their disunion 
sentiments by enfranchising the blacks in these States. 

3. Equalize representation by taking as its basis either the 
number of voters of the population, minus the disfranchised 
classes; so that these States shall have no more representation 
in proportion to their represented people than the old free 
States have. 

Either proposition would require an amendment to the 
Constitution, to be accepted by the rebel States as a condition- 
precedent to their restoration. It is also proposed to couple 
with either proposition a second amendment, prohibiting the 
assumption of rebel debts and claims either by States or the 
United States. 

The third proposition has commended itself to much the 
largest number of Union members, and the amendments to 
that effect have already passed this House by more than a 
two-thirds vote. This, then, so far as this House is concerned, 


124 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


is the Congressional plan of reconstruction. All we ask of 
the rebel leaders who are wrongly charging us with having 
no policy at all, but designing to exclude them for an in¬ 
definite period, is a little time to put in form of fundamental 
law these pledges of future peace. For five years they have 
been out upon plague-infected seas. Can they not tarry at 
quarantine for a single session ? 

Stripped of all disguises, herein lies the main disagreement. 
Shall these States be recognized at once in their present tem¬ 
per, without guarantees of any kind and with a twofold repre¬ 
sentation ? It is not whether they shall be represented at all; 
to that we all agree. There may be a little question of time; 
a difference of a few weeks or a few months, and that is all. 
Shall they be represented twice over, once in their own names 
and once in the name of the negroes ? Shall they come in 
upon a representative basis that clothes a white man of the 
South with almost as much again political power as a Northern 
man controls ? That gives two white voters in South Caro¬ 
lina as much voice in the selection of a President and in the 
legislation of this House as five voters in Pennsylvania possess. 
That practically gives to one-seventh of your population, dis¬ 
loyal at that, more than one-third of your power. That, sir, 
is the great question before this House and the American pub¬ 
lic. It is an effort on the part of the opposition to carry into 
the politics of the country the old problem by which sixteen 
is made the majority of forty-nine. In England, it is called 
the system of “rotten boroughs.” It has long been the sub¬ 
ject of political strife between the free- and slave-labor counties 
of Maryland, Virginia, and Tennessee. And when it is every¬ 
where else abandoned as a pernicious and anti-republican 
theory of representation, we are asked to make it the basis 
of reconstruction in the model republic. 

The exactment of these two simple and brief amendments, 
or others similar in purpose, is so absolutely necessary for 


SPEECHES. 


125 


the preservation of the republic and the discharge of its 
obligations to its soldiers and creditors, and is so just and 
even generous to the insurgents, that they ought to receive 
the assent of every Union man, especially of every Northern 
Union man. The opposition do not dare to discuss their 
merits. While some deny that we have any plan of recon¬ 
struction, others assail it \yith insidious and deceptive objec¬ 
tions. Some of these I propose to notice here. 

First of all, they complain of the consumption of time. 
Five months have passed, and not a rebel admitted, is the 
complaining accusation. The opposition are impatient. 
They cannot wait. Come in at once, say they, to the “ erring 
brethren.” Do not wait to drop your side-arms or exchange 
your disloyal garments. Bills to protect the loyal men of the 
South against your pretended violence are pending now, come 
and help defeat them. AYe will soon have bills to enlarge 
pensions and equalize bounties to the soldiers you have 
maimed and the widows you have made; your advice and 
votes will be needed. A bill to give bounty-land to the 
“ boys in blue” could not be defeated, nor the “ butternuts” 
included without you. A bill to lift the burdens of taxation 
from the industry of the country and place it upon your for¬ 
eign confederates, through exported cotton, will need your 
attention. Hurry up your organizations. Do not wait to 
heal lips blistered with a double oath of broken fealty before 
you kiss the Holy Evangelists with another. We have buried 
our sons and are languishing to clasp the hands of their mur¬ 
derers. AVhen once admitted, deny that you ever tried to 
break up the government, but swear on all occasions that 
the Lincoln party were and are the traitors. 

The complainants have only themselves to blame for much of 
this delay. Except for their persistent opposition, the amend¬ 
ments would have been submitted months ago to the Legisla¬ 
tures then in session in the loyal States, and been assented to, 


126 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


no doubt, by the constitutional number. Except for their own 
opposition they might now be welcoming back their long 
mourned friends to seats in these halls. But they would con¬ 
sent to nothing that did not return them greater in numbers 
and more malevolent in purpose. Hence the delay. Hinc 
illse lachrymse. 

Next we are told that it conflicts with the “ President’s 
policy.” What is the President’s policy ? I aver, first, that 
the President when last authoritatively heard from, was in 
favor of the principle embodied in each of the proposed 
amendments. Of the first one, because he required the Con¬ 
federate States to adopt it; of the second one, because he has 
repeatedly declared himself in favor of making the number 
of voters the basis of representation. I aver, second, that he 
does not consider the status of the States such that their as¬ 
sent to constitutional amendments cannot be required as con- 
ditions-precedent to their restoration, because he directed Mr. 
Seward to inform these States that their assent to the amend¬ 
ment proposed in the last Congress was “ indispensable” to 
restoration; and because he has not himself dealt with them 
as if they were States already in the Union. When the Con¬ 
federacy fell, they were in full operation under governments 
originally organized in the Union. Governors, Legislatures, 
judges, and a full set of county and township officers were at 
work under constitutions once declared to be republican in 
form by the United States. These governments were regular, 
unless you assent to the doctrine of forfeiture, for they had 
political continuity, what the church people call apostolic suc¬ 
cession. Yet they were destroyed by the President’s order, 
and new ones extemporized in their stead. 

From that time to this, in these States, the breath of the 
President has been the law of the land. Mr. Johnson went 
much further in this direction than his predecessor. Mr. 
Lincoln established governments only in States where he 


SPEECHES. 


127 


found none existing before, but Mr. Johnson first destroyed 
existing governments and then supplied their places with 
those of his own creation. So, both by words, and actions 
which speak louder than words, the President assents to every 
principle involved in the Congressional policy of reconstruc¬ 
tion. Indeed, the two policies could not well conflict, because 
they relate to different subjects. The one creates or revives 
State organizations, the other renews their Federal relations. 
When these organizations were complete, and the States ready 
to apply to Congress for a return to the Union, the Presi¬ 
dent’s policy was ended. His work was all done. The rest 
was for Congress. So he directed his Secretary of State to 
inform Governor Sharkey, July 24, 1865, Governor Marvin, 
September 12, 1865, and so he informed us in his annual 
message. If he has changed his policy since then, it is hardly 
worth while to inquire what it is now, for his principles are 
written in water. 

I do not wish to disguise the fact that while he approves 
the two amendments and believes the power exists to require 
their adoption as conditions of return, he thinks it unneces¬ 
sary to insist upon any terms additional to those imposed by 
himself. It is in this opinion that his old persecutors, the 
defeated enemies of the Union, the foiled plotters of his assas¬ 
sination, have taken heart, and with cruel malice conspired 
with Northern sympathizers to pursue him with their unre¬ 
lenting friendship. Their last hope for the destruction of 
this country lies in the seduction of its friends. War failed 
them, they resort to diplomacy. The President was not much 
moved by their threats, will he be seduced by their flattery? 
If so, let me assure those of our friends who are disposed to 
suppress their own convictions in hope to detain him and his 
patronage in a little select court party, that they might as well 
exercise a reasonable liberty of opinion. For if he ever deter¬ 
mines to trust his political future to anybody besides the great, 


128 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


earnest, triumphant Union organization that elected him, he 
will have sense enough to put them aside as mere nobodies 
in popular strength, heartless friends and harmless enemies, 
as courtiers always are, and push straight for the “ Southern 
brotherhood/’ the opponents of a permanent and peaceful 
Union. 

In that event his children and friends may well rejoice that 
the past, at least, is secure. His patriotic thoughts of the last 
five years will still live, although only to reprove him. 

Again, it is said by way of excuse, “ Why not admit such 
Union men as Fowler, Stokes, and Maynard, of Tennessee?” 
Because it is not a question about men. Shall a disloyal dis¬ 
trict, while it is still in a disloyal spirit, be declared entitled 
to representation with only half as many people in it as we 
require for a district in the North? That is the question. 
Captain Semmes ran up the Union flag when he wished to 
decoy an unarmed merchant vessel under the power of his 
guns, but replaced it with the pirate emblem when he had 
secured his victim. The names of these patriots are hung out 
to-day to secure representation to a rebel constituency behind 
them, but they will be hauled down at the first election and 
rebels put up in their stead. You may think you are only 
recognizing the Union flag, but when it is too late you will 
find yourself alongside the “ Alabama” and in the power of its 
pirate crew. 

But it is said in reply, “ We will not admit disloyal men, 
even if elected.” How can you help yourselves ? If a whole 
delegation from South Carolina, for instance, present them¬ 
selves to the Clerk of the last House, and ask to be placed on 
the roll prior to organization, and tender him the certificate 
of their election, signed by the governor and sealed with the 
great seal of that most sovereign State, shall the Clerk say 
which is loyal and which not? I suppose not. After the 
organization, in which all have participated, and all have 


SPEECHES. 


129 


been qualified, and taken their seats, you will get up an in¬ 
quisitorial committee to explore the secret recesses of their 
consciences and be father confessors to their sins. “No, but 
the iron-clad oath will exclude them.” Do you not know, 
sir, that almost every man who is in favor of admitting these 
States without conditions is also in favor of repealing that oath ? 
They already denounce it as an odious and unconstitutional 
test. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster- 
General, backed up by a message from the President, ask its 
repeal so far as regards their Departments, thus making rebels 
as eligible as Union soldiers to appointments here, and under 
such lead I expect to see it swept away, and so do most of the 
gentlemen who are now urging us to lay aside a real safeguard 
and trust to this cobweb of a morning. 

But suppose we could in this way contrive to dictate to 
these people whom they should and whom they should not 
elect, what kind of representation would that be? We say 
to them, “You are free to select your representatives, but 
mind that you select such as suit us, not yourselves.” You 
call that representation. I call it obedience. We propose to 
extract the envenomed fang of the serpent before he is un¬ 
caged ; and you to bind him with test oaths afterwards. 
Suppose, again, you could manage to exclude in this way 
those who had been engaged in the rebellion, do you not 
know that a rebel constituency could find a fit representa¬ 
tion outside that list, and all the more dangerous on that 
account ? If they had none at home, they could colonize from 
the North. 

Again, magnanimity is invoked as a shield of desertion. 
A great nation, it is said, can afford to be magnanimous. Of 
course it can ; but let us see how this is. For four years these 
people made war upon us, without cause or even plausible ex¬ 
cuse. Before they began it, we begged them, in great humility, 
to withhold from the country this terrible desolation. In tears 


130 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


we warned them of the punishment that must follow. Our 
entreaties and warnings were received in the rebel capital, so 
their telegraph informed us, “ with peals of laughter.” They 
fired upon us while we were yet upon our knees begging for 
peace and union. The contest once begun was conducted on 
our part with great forbearance and within the strictest mili¬ 
tary law. We even returned, for a while, their fugitive slaves. 
On their part it was conducted not only with the condemned 
system of cruel guerilla and piratical warfare, but with fire, 
poison, yellow fever, and assassination. The estates of Union 
men within their power were confiscated, and have never yet 
been restored, and Union men were hung for treason to their 
pretended government. 

You tell us they have suffered. So have we. Peace has 
come at last; business prosperity will return; the insignia of 
mourning will be laid aside; but in the heart of every family 
there is an unspoken sorrow that will sadden life even to the 
grave. Now, we are admonished to be magnanimous to the 
authors of all this suffering. I accept the admonition, but I 
submit that we are so already. The law condemned them to 
death, and we have pardoned them. Their estates were for¬ 
feited, and we have restored them. Not a traitor has been 
hung ; not one convicted; not one tried ; not a dozen arrested ; 
but many have been honored as rulers in States they only 
failed to ruin. The high-sounding eloquence of the gentle¬ 
man from New York [Mr. Raymond], calling upon us to 
admire the “ courage and devotion” with which these bad 
men prosecuted a cruel war against our kindred, our homes, 
and our country for four years, has scarcely subsided, when 
our tears are invoked over their self-inflicted sufferings. 
Thus, at this end of the avenue, we are alternately called 
upon to admire and pity them, while at the other the green 
seal is kept hot with its work of clemency,—clemency often 
unsolicited, sometimes contemned. We have even ordered 


SPEECHES. 


131 


historic inscriptions to be erased from captured cannon at 
West Point, that the boys educated at the expense of a gov¬ 
ernment their fathers could not quite destroy might not be 
irritated. What more can we do ? What more can gentle¬ 
men ask in the name of magnanimity ? “ Give to this one- 

seventh of your population more than one-third of your 
political power.” Is that what you ask, and call it only 
magnanimity to the false men of the country ? Call it 
rather treachery to the faithful; or if that sounds too harsh, 
call it submission, surrender, what you like,—but for the 
sake of truth, let no one call betrayal of country and friends 
magnanimity to enemies. 

Again, sir, the effort to cut off the excess of this unpatriotic 
and sectional representation is ascribed to party motives. Is 
not the opposition exposed to the same charge ? Is not the 
Democratic party as anxious to secure friends as we are to 
avoid enemies ? For the last five years they have been 
beaten everywhere. Every election has proved to them that 
they were growing small by large degrees. “ Would to God 
that night or the rebels would come!” has been their daily 
prayer. Does this haste to embrace the misguided brethren 
come solely from pure love and affection ? Is it not possible 
that their passion is somewhat like that of— 

“ The immortal Captain Wottle, 

Who was all for love, and a little for the bottle.” 

Is it not possible that they look a little to party, too ? That 
they long not only for the alliance, but the leadership of the 
South ? They must remember that this leadership was gen¬ 
erally able and always consistent, however unwise. It was 
not under that lead that they proclaimed both secession and 
coercion unconstitutional; that the war for the Union was 
constitutional, but there was no constitutional mode of con- 


132 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


ducting it; that an army should be raised, but volunteering 
was impracticable and drafting unconstitutional; that it was 
right to raise money, but wrong to tax or borrow ; that they 
were opposed to emancipation, but not in favor of slavery. 
It was not under that lead that Andrew Johnson was de¬ 
nounced as Lincoln’s satrap when he consented to be pro¬ 
visional governor for a State from which the old governor 
and Legislature had run away, and cheered as a patriot when 
he drove out the governors and Legislatures of half a dozen 
States, and supplied their places with appointees of his own. 
Is it not probable that, tired of their contradictory and hypo¬ 
critical position, they crave the undissembling leadership of 
Breckenridge and Hunter, Davis and Toombs, as much as we 
can possibly dread it ? 

As another excuse for opposition to this plan of restoration 
it is said there are other inequalities in representation that 
ought to be removed as well as this. An honorable gentle¬ 
man from Pennsylvania complains that the six Eastern States 
have each two Senators, while Hew York and other large 
States have no more. It is true that some of the Eastern 
States are small; but the Constitution provides that each 
State, whether large or small, shall have two Senators; and it 
further provides that while that instrument may be amended 
in other respects, with the assent of three-fourths of the States, 
in this respect it shall not be amended without the assent of 
all the States. But why point only to the Eastern States to 
illustrate the inequality of senatorial representation? The 
best illustration of it is not to be found there. The popula¬ 
tion of these States is 3,135,223. In the South you can find 
a smaller population with a larger representation in the Senate. 
The population of Arkansas, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, 
West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware is only 3,032,761. 
Here are seven States with more than one hundred thousand 
less population than the six Eastern States, one-third of that 


SPEECHES. 


133 


being negroes, with fourteen Senators, two more than New 
England. Why did not the gentleman make his point on 
these States? Was it because the Eastern States are free and 
loyal, and the others were slave-holding and in part disloyal ? 
And why, just in this connection, does he complain that boun¬ 
ties are paid for catching fish ? He never complained when 
higher bounties were paid for catching men and women for 
the Southern market. These are the old complaints of the 
South, warmed over, in anticipation of its return; groundless, 
no doubt, but if ever so just, furnishing no good excuse for 
allowing to the complainants a twofold representation in this 
House. 

Once more we are reminded that taxation and representa¬ 
tion should go together. True, sir, but that would not entitle 
them to a double representation, nor deprive Congress of a 
reasonable time for deliberation as to the extent of the right 
and the best mode of securing it. But if it is meant that 
they are entitled on the score of taxation to instantaneous, 
unconditional, and disproportionate representation, I must 
beg leave to inquire, where are the immense taxes paid by 
them, upon which to base such extraordinary claims? The 
loyal people of the country have been paying burdensome 
taxes, a million per day, imposed by their misconduct, but 
when and where have they paid taxes? For the last five 
years they have paid none, and the amount they are just now 
beginning to pay is too trifling for argument. If the right of 
representation could be acquired by imposing taxes upon 
others or by robbery of the government, their claim would 
be indisputable. They robbed the Southern post-offices of 
money, stamps, and mails ; the arsenals and military and 
naval depots of ammunition, arms, and clothing ; the custom¬ 
houses and sub-treasuries of goods, bonds, and money; and 
the New Orleans Mint of six hundred thousand dollars in 
gold, and have never made restitution. But they have paid 


134 


GLENNl W. SCOFIELD . 


very few taxes, and long before they will be called upon to 
do so a fair and adequate representation will be accorded 
them. 

But they have still another argument,—the one relied upon 
when all others fail, their refuge from discomfiture in every 
other field of debate,—and this is what they call the consti¬ 
tutional argument. When they find themselves unable to 
maintain in discussion the propriety of allowing the dis¬ 
loyal population a twofold representation, the half to repre¬ 
sent themselves and the other half to misrepresent the loyal 
people, white and black, in their midst; when they can no 
longer screen themselves behind the “ President’s policy,” 
words of indefinite meaning; when their aspersion upon our 
motives is repelled by showing that they have as strong party 
interests in forming an alliance with the rebels as we possibly 
can have in trying to prevent it; when their taxation theory 
is demolished by a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, 
they fall back upon the constitutional right of States to repre¬ 
sentation. They will retreat no farther. This is their last 
ditch in debate. And here— 

“ In Dixie’s land 
They take their stand, 

To live or die for Dixie.” 

Mr. Speaker, we are in an anomalous condition. The Con¬ 
stitution does not especially provide for the difficulties with 
which we are surrounded. Our fathers could not believe 
that so large a portion of the American people could be so 
barbarized by slavery as to undertake such stupendous crime. 
They did not provide for what they could not foresee. There 
are no precedents on file to guide us. This is the first disunion 
rebellion. Ours will be the first precedent in reconstruction, 
and the last—only if it is justly and wisely made. There 
are objections, plausible or otherwise, to every theory that has 


SPEECHES. 


135 


been or can be advanced as to the status of these States. My 
colleague [Mr. Stevens] suggested that their present position 
was very much like that of California after the Mexican war. 
A score or more of speeches have been made to show that 
there are objections to this theory. The gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Shellabarger] suggested that these State govern¬ 
ments had perished in the rebellion, and that now new ones, 
republican in form, should be originated by Congress. Ob¬ 
jections were raised to this theory. The gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Raymond] suggested that new governments 
must be originated and proper guarantees and conditions 
could be imposed, but these things should be done by the 
commander-in-chief of the army and navy as the terms of 
surrender. Objections have been raised to that theory, also. 
Others, still, take the position that, inasmuch as new consti¬ 
tutions and new governments have been established in these 
States originating in an irregular or revolutionary manner, 
it is the duty of Congress, under the fourth article and fourth 
section of the Constitution, to see that they are republican 
in form, and in the discharge of that duty, require such con¬ 
ditions or guarantees as the safety of the Union, in their 
judgment, demands. This, too, is objected to. 

An honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania at the other end 
of the Capitol, with some self-conceit, as it seems to me, sets 
down all these reconstruction suggestions or theories as mere 
whimsies. He has a plan of his own to restore the Union 
and get rid of traitors. It is simple in theory and cheap in 
execution. He will execute it himself with only the aid of a 
constable. Whenever a rebel shows his head he and his con¬ 
stable will pounce upon him like a Buchanan marshal on a 
flying negro. He will put him where no rebel ever went 
before with his consent,—in the old Capitol Prison. If the 
honorable gentleman really thinks that his plan is practicable, 
why does he not set about its execution ? His intended vie- 


136 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


tims swarm through the Capitol and the White House, and 
two or three dozen of them are asking admission to Congress. 
There are objections to this theory. Indeed, it has been tried. 
It was Buchanan’s plan for suppressing the rebellion, but it 
failed. 

Now, sir, the theory of the opposition, based upon the 
second and third sections of the first article of the Constitu¬ 
tion, under which members from the rebel States are to be 
admitted to these halls without our leave, is that the right of 
a State to representation cannot be forfeited or lost so long as 
these two sections remain unaltered. Is there no objection to 
this theory? Why, it concedes the right of representation 
during the whole war. Their members could have entered 
this Capitol at any time and voted as the interest of the Con¬ 
federacy required. If the war had lasted fifty years instead 
of four, the right would have run through all that time. Nor 
would it have ceased if our armies had been overpowered and 
the Confederacy left unmolested. After one hundred years of 
separation they might still vote for President and send mem¬ 
bers to Congress. Unless you admit the doctrine of forfeiture, 
you cannot avoid this conclusion. Aside from this doctrine, 
nothing but an amendment to the Constitution could deprive 
them of this right. But the Constitution could not be amended, 
because these eleven States are more than one-fourtli of the 
whole, and the assent of some of them would be necessary for 
any amendment; and to deprive them of Senators the assent 
of every one would be necessary. 

The advocates of this theory, to avoid the result, concede 
that the right of representation would be forfeited by success. 
But how ? The Constitution is not changed by the result of a 
battle. There it is, just as it was before. If they lost nothing 
by defeat, would they by success? They lost nothing by 
secession and unsuccessful war, you say, because these were 
unconstitutional. Can they lose anything, then, by victory ? 


SPEECHES. 


137 


Would not that be unconstitutional, also? “But we would 
acquiesce.” Well, suppose we should ; would not acquies¬ 
cence be unconstitutional and void ? Where in the Constitu¬ 
tion are we authorized to acquiesce in a division of the repub¬ 
lic? If their ordinance of secession was void, would not our 
consent to it be equally void ? If the ordinance was void, can 
it be rendered more so by defeat, or less so by victory ? Some 
of the advocates of this theory, to avoid this reasoning, concede 
that the right of representation is forfeited or suspended dur¬ 
ing “ contumacy.” This cruel word to characterize the great 
rebellion is not original with me. It is the word maliciously 
chosen by our conservative friends who are determined to 
make treason odious. I wish the printer to enclose it with 
inverted commas, that such severity of language may not be 
ascribed to me. But who is to decide when the suspension 
begins and when it ends ? The State ? If so, that is no sus¬ 
pension at all. A right that can be taken up and laid down 
at pleasure cannot be said to be suspended. Is Congress the 
judge? Then I submit that by secession from the United 
States, by the formation of a new confederacy, by four years 
of terrible war and five of scornful refusal, these States would 
become a little contumacious, and Congress would be justi¬ 
fied in suspending their rights until the legislation necessary 
to make representation fair and equal could be agreed upon 
and passed. And that is all that anybody here proposes 
to do. 

This appeal to the Constitution for authority to hand the 
government over to the unrepentant plotters of its destruction 
is but a continuation of the policy pursued by the opposition 
for the last five years. During that period they have raised 
a cry about the Constitution many times, but always in oppo¬ 
sition to good measures or in advocacy of bad ones. When it 
was first proposed to coerce the rebellion and save the Union, 
and at every following step towards apparent success, they 

10 


138 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


cried “ unconstitutional.” It was unconstitutional to raise an 
army or march it into the sacred soil of the South. It was 
unconstitutional to issue bills of credit to meet the expenses. 
It was unconstitutional to close a rebel port or arrest a rebel 
spy, to proclaim martial law in a rebel country, or to appoint 
a provisional governor for conquered Louisiana or abandoned 
Tennessee. Look back through the debates of the opposi¬ 
tion ; there is nothing constitutional but slavery and rebellion ; 
nothing so unconstitutional as coercion and emancipation. 
Judging from these debates, the Constitution was especially 
framed to repress liberty, punish fidelity to the Union, shield 
oppression, and honor treachery and great crime. These war 
measures are all constitutional now. Great light is thrown 
upon the Constitution by the surrender of Lee. The gleam of 
successful bayonets illumines the dark understanding of pro¬ 
slavery quibblers. But, alas ! the light of success shines only 
on the past. All the future is still unconstitutional. The 
“ unconstitutional, disunion, abolition war” is rendered consti¬ 
tutional by the victory of our soldiers, but the effort to secure 
to the country the fruits of that victory by appropriate legis¬ 
lation is as unconstitutional as ever. 

Here I close my defence of the Republican policy of resto¬ 
ration. Shall that policy be adopted ? Not by this Congress, 
it is said, because enough conservative Republicans will unite 
with the opposition to defeat it. Then, by falsely charging 
upon the Union party non-action and lack of purpose, it is 
hoped that a Congress can be elected next fall which will 
repeal the test oath and admit the rebel States without guaran¬ 
tees or conditions of any kind, and with a representation 
always excessive and now enlarged by emancipation. With¬ 
out the enlargement (which will not be attained until after the 
next census) the eleven Confederate States will have eighty 
votes in the Electoral College, controlled entirely by the late 
insurgents, namely,— 


SPEECHES. 


139 


Alabama.8 

Mississippi.7 

Arkansas. 5 

Texas.6 

Louisiana.7 

Florida.3 

Georgia.9 

North Carolina.9 

South Carolina.6 

Virginia. 10 

Tennessee. 10 


They will need seventy-seven more to elect a President. 
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware, States with 
strong Confederate proclivities, will, it is claimed, furnish 
thirty-one, while the other forty-six can be made up by the 
Democrats of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The 
classification of votes by which the President would thus be 
elected would stand, Confederates 80, semi-Confederates 31, 
Democratic 46. This Presidential scheme will undoubtedly 
fail, and yet it is the only one that has the slightest chance of 
success. If the Union party can be beaten at all, it must be 
by this or some similar combination. Suppose it successful, 
then what would be the character of the new administration ? 
Four members of the Cabinet would belong to the eighty 
Confederate votes and the other three to the seventy-seven 
from the Northern and border States. All Presidential ap¬ 
pointments at home and abroad must be made on the same 
line of division. 

If, as is alleged, this combination could also carry a major¬ 
ity of Congress, the Confederates would have a majority of 
that majority, and in caucus (giving their allies the Clerk) 
would demand the Speaker and a majority of all committees, 
such as the Ways and Means, Claims, and Pensions, to which 
their peculiar interests might be referred. Pensions must 
then be surrendered or divided with Confederate claimants; 













140 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


service in the Union army would be an impediment to politi¬ 
cal success, and the Treasury, supplied by the industry and 
economy of the North, would be steadily absorbed in Confed¬ 
erate damages. Then your creditors might count their worth¬ 
less bonds, and learn exactly how much it cost them to re¬ 
claim their fugitive masters. Then the pensionless widows 
and orphans of our valiant dead might bemoan, in poverty and 
neglect, the ingratitude of a republic saved by a husband’s and 
father’s blood. And then our surviving soldiers must con¬ 
ceal their honorable scars to save a humble position in the 
capital they helped to preserve,—for the enemy. Then, sir, 
we will all see, feel, and realize what the opposition, in differ¬ 
ent phraseology, constantly assert, that the object of the war 
was to force the rebels to become our rulers. 


SPEECHES. 


141 


SPEECH 

ON THE BILL TO PROVIDE FOR RESTORING TO THE STATES 
LATELY IN INSURRECTION THEIR FULL POLITICAL RIGHTS. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives, January 19, 1867. 


Mr. Speaker, —As the Confederate population, five or six 
million in numbers, is to remain in this country, and to some 
extent shape its destiny, it is all-important that we so recon¬ 
struct the Union that this population may become an element 
of strength rather than of weakness to the republic. Power¬ 
ful as we are, we can hardly afford to allow a population 
so large, brave, and reckless to settle down into chronic dis¬ 
content—forever to be to America what Ireland is to Great 
Britain, Poland to Russia, or Hungary to Austria,—an ever- 
ready element of revolution. To avoid this result is the 
avowed purpose of both political parties; but, strange to say, 
with the same professed end in view, they start out upon 
paths leading in quite opposite directions. The Republicans 
claim that the Union can be best preserved by removing the 
causes of discontent and thus extinguishing the motives to 
disunion, while the Democrats think the Union can be best 
preserved by tolerating, conciliating, and fostering the errors 
and wrongs from which disunion sprang. 

For instance, the preservation of slavery was the original 
motive for secession. To destroy this motive, the Republicans 
propose to abolish and the Democrats to foster slavery. Act¬ 
ing upon their theory, aud anticipating the final overthrow of 




142 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


the rebellion, the Republicans began, early in the war, the re¬ 
moval of its cause. They prohibited the extension of slavery, 
abolished it in the District of Columbia, forbade the return 
of slaves by the army, repealed the fugitive slave law, sup¬ 
ported Fremont’s, Hunter’s, and Phelps’s partial and Mr. 
Lincoln’s more general proclamation of freedom, and finally, 
by an amendment of the Constitution, prohibited it every¬ 
where and forever. Thus, it was hoped that when the rebel¬ 
lion should be suppressed, no conflicting interest would be 
left, about which the North and South could quarrel. There 
appeared, however, to be a lingering hope in the minds of the 
late masters that in a separate republic the institution might 
still be revived in some modified form and something at least 
of their large investment saved, and to this extent the motive 
to renew the struggle in more propitious times survived. 
This hope and motive for disunion would grow weaker and 
weaker as the subject-race become more and more intelligent, 
thrifty, and self-reliant. 

To facilitate this result, the civil rights and Freedmen’s 
Bureau, the franchise, and many other minor bills of like 
import were passed by Congress. The advancement of the 
negro was thought to be a greater hinderance to the revival of 
the disunion institution and a greater discouragement of Con¬ 
federate outbreaks than repealable laws or amendable consti¬ 
tutions. This was the Republican plan of reunion. The 
Democrats, acting on their theory of fostering and thus con¬ 
ciliating the disturbing elements, opposed all measures for 
emancipation; and are still opposing bills for improving 
the colored race. I do not question their sincerity. Quite 
likely they sincerely thought that the best way to unite the 
North and South was to yield to, extend, cherish, and pro¬ 
pitiate the cause of disagreement. But this is passed. The 
great work is nearly accomplished, and I refer to the course 
of the two parties upon it only to illustrate my position, that 


SPEECHES. 


143 


they seek the preservation of the Union in diametrically 
opposite directions. 

The Republicans had hoped that by the removal of this 
original cause of quarrel all incentives to disunion would 
disappear; but on the threshold of reconstruction another, 
and to some extent an unexpected, trouble presents itself. 
The Confederacy had four and a quarter years of nationality. 
During this time vast interests, passions, and resentments 
grew up under and centred in it. She contracted many 
debts, a debt in bonds and currency to her capitalists, of 
damages to her property-holders, of honor to her soldiers, 
memory to her fallen, and alms to the suffering. The dead 
claim homage; the maimed, widowed and orphans, pensions ; 
the impoverished payment, and the leaders historic honors. 
These interests and passions embrace all classes and appeal to 
all hearts within the circumference of Confederate power. 
This makes a cause stronger than slavery. There is more 
money in it by half, and quite as much to awaken resentment 
or provoke resistance. 

If these people come back with these interests unbarred by 
a constitutional amendment, how can they avoid struggling to 
save in the Union all that was risked in the Confederacy? 
If they do not, they must be worse than men or better than 
angels. But these interests are in direct conflict with the 
corresponding interests of the Federal government. The re¬ 
united nation cannot honor Grant for preserving the Union 
and Lee for attempting to destroy it. We cannot mourn for 
the three hundred thousand Union dead, and pension the men 
at whose hands they fell. It will be another war of sectional 
interests, to be fought over in the halls of Congress, the State 
Legislatures, on the hustings, and then again, if opportunity 
presents, on the field of blood. The “ lost cause will take the 
place of the slave power” with a larger investment to back it, 
and a less repulsive face to defend. 


144 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


What shall be done with this new element of disintegration 
and strife ? The Republicans propose to dispose of it as they 
did slavery,—bury it by another amendment of the Constitu¬ 
tion. And why shall not this be done and the Union thus 
purified and harmonized restored at once? Does Congress 
stand in the way? No, sir; for eight months the two pol¬ 
icies—Republican surgery and Democratic opiates—were dis¬ 
cussed and contrasted in these halls, and almost everybody 
here came to the conclusion that it was better to cure than 
palliate the disorder. The amendment was agreed to, four to 
one. Do the people neglect their duty? No, sir; the amend¬ 
ment was sent out to them and for' three or four months redis¬ 
cussed. They approved it, and in twenty-three of the twenty- 
six States elected Legislatures instructed to adopt it. Do 
these legislative servants disobey instructions? No, sir; they 
are now assembling, and State after State is recording its ver¬ 
dict. Very soon these twenty-three States, having a popula¬ 
tion in 1860 of twenty-one million five hundred thousand, 
and not less than twenty-seven millions now, will send to a 
perfidious Secretary the official evidence of the people’s will. 
Delaware, three counties large, Maryland, betrayed to the 
Confederates by a servant less treacherous than weak, and 
Kentucky, whose patriotism in the great struggle hardly rose 
above a dissembling neutrality, alone give a negative answer. 

By the census of 1860, the entire population of these three 
States, white and black, was only one million nine hundred 
and fifty-five thousand, and cannot much exceed those figures 
now. Who, then, stands in the way? Not the Democratic 
party; the amendment was beyond their reach when it passed 
Congress and was endorsed by the people: not the President; 
the Constitution withholds from him any authority over the 
question of amendment. Who, then, stands in the way? 
One old man who is charged by law with the duty of 
proclaiming the adoption of the amendment, but who (the 


SPEECHES. 


145 


Chicago defeat being still unavenged) has determined to in¬ 
corporate into the Union the debris of the late Confederacy; 
to be in place of the “ irrepressible conflict” the breeder of 
present broils and future rebellions,—he stands in the way. 
He has contrived a theory of estoppel. The amendment, he 
tells us, is void without Confederate sanction. The will of 
the people of twenty-three States, nay, the whole twenty-six 
if they had been unanimous, must go for nothing unless ap¬ 
proved by a few million rebels scattered through the Con¬ 
federate States. Having set up his theory, he undertakes 
to procure from these “ misguided people”—never more mis¬ 
guided than when led by him—an expression of dissent. His 
machinations are likely to be successful. 

In 1861 the Southern heart was fired by the taunts and 
promises of Northern Democrats. “ The election of Lincoln,” 
they would say, “ is an assault upon your institutions and an 
insult to the South.” They promised in case of trouble to 
take care of the abolitionists. There should be no coercion ; 
but when the trouble came they shrunk away from the people 
they had thus prompted, perhaps unintentionally, to resist. A 
good deal of half-treasonable criticism on the action of the 
government when deeply embarrassed and struggling for life, 
a little secret encouragement and silent sympathy for the foe, 
were the only noticeable departures from a strict neutrality. 
Their promise was broken. Let me warn these Confederates 
who have abandoned their scheme of separation in good faith, 
to beware of their old advisers and their new leader. 

Here, then, arises an intermediate question. It is not 
whether Confederate assets shall be buried in the same grave 
with slavery as the Republicans propose, nor whether they 
shall be tenderly taken up and warmed into venomous life, 
in the bosom of the Union, as the Democrats propose; but 
whether this question shall be determined by the States in the 
Union or by the Confederate States. 


146 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


What, then, is the status of the ten Confederate States ? Are 
they States or Territories in the Union? If States, they can 
control the other twenty-six on a question of amendment; if 
not, not. They must be one or the other. Some suppose they 
strike intermediate ground by calling them overthrown, dis¬ 
organized, or suspended States. But certainly a State over¬ 
thrown or suspended is not at present an existing State, nor is 
a disorganized an organized State. If they have no present 
existence as States they are only at the most theoretic States, 
which are no States; or prospective States, which are Terri¬ 
tories. They have certainly not been acting as States during 
the last six years, and they are only claimed to be so because 
no way for the severance of a State from the Union is pro¬ 
vided in the Constitution. Once a State therefore always a 
State. If they are States now, they have been so for the last 
six years. Look at the consequences. By article one, sec¬ 
tion five of the Constitution, no business can be done in the 
absence of a quorum, and a quorum is there declared to be a 
majority of all the members. Now, if the Confederate States 
were also States in the Union, for the last six years this House 
consisted of two hundred and forty-two members, and no 
business could be constitutionally done without the presence of 
one hundred and twenty-two members. But for all this time 
we have acted on the hypothesis that the House was composed 
of only one hundred and eighty-four members, deducting fifty- 
eight for the rebel States, and that ninety-three made a quo¬ 
rum. The Senate has acted on a similar presumption, counting 
twenty-six, instead of thirty-seven, as the constitutional quo¬ 
rum. Probably more than half of our legislation has been 
enacted, as will appear of record, when either the House had 
less than one hundred and twenty-two, or the Senate less than 
thirty-seven members present. All this must therefore be 
unconstitutional and void. 

Again, a Presidential election occurred during the war. If 


SPEECHES. 


147 


the Confederate States had not forfeited their privileges as 
States in the Union, they were entitled to cast eighty electoral 
votes. These eighty votes might have decided the contest, and 
they might thus have chosen the commander-in-chief of our 
army and navy to conduct the war against them ; or, by cast¬ 
ing their votes for Jefferson Davis, they might have defeated 
an election by the people and thrown it into this House. What 
then? We vote by States (article two, section seven), and 
two-thirds of all the States must be represented. If Kentucky 
and Missouri had joined the Confederacy, as they attempted 
to do,—and they actually were represented in it during the 
entire war,—more than one-third of the States would have 
been absent, and the election of President would have become 
impossible. The Senate would have encountered the same 
difficulty in the election of Vice-President. To perform this 
duty two-thirds of all the Senators must be present. That 
number could not be had in the case supposed, and so we 
must go without executive officers until the rebel States choose 
to relieve us by sending representatives to aid in choosing 
them for us. 

Suppose, again, that pending the war it had become abso¬ 
lutely necessary to amend the Constitution, that all parties 
concurred in its propriety, and the loyal States were unani¬ 
mous upon the subject, it could not have been done without 
the consent of the Confederate States. Though formed into a 
separate republic and conducting a war with this, not the 
slightest change in our fundamental law, however necessary to 
our salvation, could be had without their consent. And this 
state of things would have continued as long as the war con¬ 
tinued, even if it were a quarter of a century ; worse than that, 
sir, in the light of this theory they were States in the Union 
until released or expelled by an amendment of the Constitu¬ 
tion. Such an amendment required the consent of all the 
States. No matter, then, how the war should terminate, or 


148 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


whether it terminated at all, their power over us could never 
be severed without their consent. Seceding and fighting 
would not do, you say, because these were unconstitutional 
acts. But whipping us, I would suppose, would be quite 
as unconstitutional as fighting. If they had succeeded in the 
war and maintained a separate republic, they could then have 
run their own government and in part controlled ours in spite 
of us. The absurdity of this hypothesis proves the truth of 
the other. When a State rebels and levies war against the 
Union, it thereby forfeits its privileges as a State, and can 
only be restored by Congress. 

Absurd as the other theory is, upon it the Secretary of State 
has undertaken to bring back to the Union the Confederate 
population, freighted with all the belligerent interest collected 
by four and a quarter years of nationality and war. How ? 
Not by convincing the people; that has been tried and failed. 
Not by executive patronage; that has failed also. Not by 
corrupting Congress, for his old lobbyist is powerless here. 
No, sir; he meditates the seduction of another old man who 
happens to hold the balance of power in the Supreme Court; 
vague rumors of a mission to England are afloat. The Secre¬ 
tary seems to think that a man who can betray his constitu¬ 
ents and misrepresent his State will make a good misrep resen - 
tative of the nation abroad; and why not send a second 
champion of his theory to flaunt his soiled ermine at the court 
of St. James and negotiate treaties for the payment of Con¬ 
federate cotton bonds or a release of claims for the piracies of 
the “ Alabama” ? 

But his judge must have something to stand upon. The 
courts follow precedents, and the Rhode Island case stands in 
the way. This question is there held to be a political one, to 
be decided by the political department of the government. 
Eventually he will insist that this decision has been made, and 
made in his favor. To meet this emergency, he is now and 


SPEECHES. 


149 


has been for some time preparing his facts. The emancipa¬ 
tion amendment was agreed to by twenty-three States out of 
the twenty-five then in the Union,—many more than the 
number required for its adoption; but in his proclamation he 
chose to omit from his count a portion of these States and add 
seven Confederate communities to make the number required 
by his construction. There is a precedent for his judge. So 
he submitted without authority to these same communities 
the amendment now under consideration, to be acted on by 
them in the capacity of States. There is another precedent. 
The Interior is prompted to issue agricultural land scrip 
which can only be given to States in the Union, and the 
Treasury and Post-Office Departments are ordered out of 
their line of duties to make some small recognition of these 
communities as States. These will make so many more 
precedents for his judge. 

The Secretary first declares they are States, treats them as 
States, procures other executive departments to do likewise, 
and then cites his acts and declarations to enable a willing 
judge to decide that they are States, and thus launch into the 
heart of the republic a Confederate shell with fuse still burn¬ 
ing by a single twitch of his gown. 

Mr. Cooper. —Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to ask the 
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania whether this House 
did not adopt a resolution making it the duty of Mr. Mc¬ 
Pherson, its Clerk, to forward the very constitutional amend¬ 
ment about which he is arguing to the different States lately 
in rebellion before he knew the Secretary of State had for¬ 
warded it? 

Mr. Scofield. — I do not recollect any such action of the 
House. But if sent to them by us, it was only to allow them 
an opportunity to prove their loyalty by giving it their assent. 
In the preamble to the bill readmitting Tennessee their assent 
to this amendment is recited, among other things, as evidence 


150 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


of the loyalty of the government de facto, and as a reason for 
legitimatizing it and admitting it into the Union. For this 
purpose we, of course, desired them to have a copy, but, un¬ 
like the Secretary of State, we did not expect that the assent 
of these communities would fasten this amendment upon the 
country without the concurrence of three-fourths of the ad¬ 
hering States, nor that their dissent would defeat it if that 
concurrence was had. 

The Secretary is clever in work of this kind. An English 
nobleman was at one time exhibiting his kennel to an Ameri¬ 
can friend, and passing by many of his showiest bloods, they 
came upon one that seemed nearly used up. “This,” said 
the nobleman, “is the most valuable animal in the pack, 
although he is old, lame, blind, and deaf.” “ How is that ?” 
inquired the visitor. The nobleman explained : “ His educa¬ 
tion was good, to begin with, and his wonderful sense of smell 
is still unimpaired. We only take him out to catch the scent 
and put the puppies on the track and then return him to,the 
kennel.” Do not suppose that I intend any comparison be¬ 
tween the Secretary of State and that veteran hunter. Such a 
comparison would be neither dignified nor truthful, because 
the Englishman went on to say, “ I have owned that dog for 
thirteen years, and, hard as he looks, he never bit the hand 
that fed him, nor barked on a false trail.” [Laughter and 
applause on the floor and in the galleries, promptly checked 
by the Speaker.] 

I would inquire of the Chair if my time has expired. 

The Speaker.— It has not. 

Mr. Stevens (in his seat).—The Chair called you to order 
for doing injustice to the dog. [Renewed laughter.] 

Mr. Scofield. —I mistook the fall of the hammer fora 
notice to quit. However, I have but little more to add. 
The charge is often made here and elsewhere, that the Repub¬ 
lican policy of reconstruction leads to disintegration rather 


SPEECHES. 


151 


than reunion. In reply to that charge I am endeavoring to 
show that its tendency is to harmonize and cement the Union. 
I follow this narrow line of argument because it has fallen 
to others to discuss that policy in connection with the ab¬ 
stract principles of republican government, justice, religion, 
humanity, and civilization. 

When interrupted, I was going on to say that the Secretary, 
in his efforts to baffle the Union policy of the Republican 
party, will even claim that his guerilla governments have 
the implied sanction of Congress. For more than a year 
these organizations have usurped the control of public affairs 
in their several localities and systematically oppressed and 
persecuted the Union people there. For more than a year 
we have been inactive, if not silent, witnesses of these usurpa¬ 
tions. We have taken no steps to suppress them, nor to pro¬ 
vide the people with constitutional governments. The exist¬ 
ing ones are only the Confederate governments revived,—more 
oppressive, malignant, and resentful, under the feeble restraints 
of a cowed opponent, than under the iron rule of the Confed¬ 
erate President himself. The despotism and barbarities of 
Davis were not wanton. They had a purpose—the success 
of the Confederate cause. The “ stern statesman” allowed no 
further license; but under the Seward dynasty lynching and 
murder has become a pastime. Better by far for the Union 
men of the South if their governments were again placed 
under the restraining despotism of Jefferson Davis. At least 
he would not allow helpless and unoffending people to be 
mobbed and murdered for no Confederate or public purpose. 

How much longer shall we turn a deaf ear to the cry of 
the oppressed ? How much longer shall we stand here and 
see the brave men who for four years, amid obloquy, persecu¬ 
tion, imprisonment, and torture, refused to forswear the flag, 
now when that flag is triumphant, in part through their suf¬ 
ferings, driven from their homes or shot down in the streets 


152 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


like dogs ? If we thus meanly desert our friends, the rebels 
themselves will despise us. The best way to protect our 
friends, to quiet the country, and to harmonize and cement 
the Union is to bury whatever is left of slavery and Con¬ 
federate nationality in a common grave. Through the machi¬ 
nations of the President and Secretary of State the work has 
been too long delayed. This bill should pass without delay. 


SPEECHES. 


153 


SPEECH 

ON THE BILL ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY TO AN ACT 
ENTITLED “ AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE MORE EFFICIENT 
GOVERNMENT OF THE REBEL STATES,” PASSED MARCH 2, 1867. 


Delivered in the United States House of Representatives, January 20 , 1868 . 


Mr. Scofield rose and said : 

Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that all reconstruction legislation 
is regarded by one side of this House as unconstitutional, 
revolutionary, and despotic, while the other side, more numer¬ 
ous, not less honest, not less patriotic, not less learned in the 
principles of the Constitution, not less devoted to human 
liberty nor opposed to every form of human oppression, look 
upon the same legislation as constitutional, appropriate, and 
necessary ? I impugn the motives of neither side, but I ask 
for a solution of this disagreement. I suppose it is because 
the two sides of the House look at the subject from different 
stand-points. One side holds that the Confederate States are 
now, and all the time have been, constructed and ready for 
admission; while the other side holds that the regular consti¬ 
tutional State governments were destroyed by the war, and 
that new ones must be originated, by somebody, to take their 
place before they can elect Senators and Representatives to 
Congress. From these stand-points the view of either side 
is correct. It was somewhat so during the war. One party 
started out with the theory that it was unconstitutional to 
coerce a sovereign State into submission to the general gov- 

11 




154 


GLENN I W. SCOFIELD . 


eminent, and of course from this stand-point all war measures 
were unconstitutional; while the other party, holding that 
coercion was constitutional, approved of all measures calcu¬ 
lated to accomplish that result. 

The difference between us on the question of reconstruction 
is mainly a question of fact. If it be true that the Confed¬ 
erate States have now legal and constitutional governments, 
all reconstruction is, as is claimed, unconstitutional, revolu¬ 
tionary, and despotic; but if they have no such governments, 
it must be admitted that reconstruction of some kind is an 
absolute necessity. If South Carolina, for instance, has now, 
or has had since 1861, a legal State government, I will thank 
some gentleman on the other side to tell me what it is. Is it 
the old government that existed prior to the war ? I admit 
that this constitution is printed in a book and laid away in 
the libraries of the country, but I deny that it has any exist¬ 
ence outside of books. If it has any other existence, where 
is it? It has no governor, no legislature, no judge. There 
is not a single gentleman within the limits of the State who 
professes allegiance to it, and no one inquires what it pro¬ 
hibits or what it commands. It is like the unsepulchred 
skull,— 

“Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” 

I know the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Kerr] claimed 
the other day that the State government might be revived. 
Indeed, I think he said it had been revived. But that would 
involve the exercise of all the power that anybody claims in 
the legislation which we are now enacting. To reconstruct 
and to revive a government that is dead means the same 
thing. 

Is it the Confederate State government that exists in South 
Carolina? It did exist there, when Congress adjourned in 
March, 1865; but when we assembled in December, 1865, it 
had disappeared. Mr. Johnson and his Secretary of State 


SPEECHES. 


155 


had gone down there and disposed of it. They had scuttled 
the hull and sent the Confederate ship, with all its treason¬ 
able machinery, to the bottom, leaving to the country nothing 
but the hateful memory of its crimes. 

But Mr. Johnson and Mr. Seward have set up some gov¬ 
ernments in the late Confederate States, and it is said that 
Congress should recognize them. Why ? Because they have 
been accepted by the people there? No, sir; they were not 
submitted to the people in any State except North Carolina, 
and in that State a majority voted against it. And in the 
election of delegates to the conventions, only about one-third 
of the white voters participated at all, and a portion of those 
gave their votes against the whole scheme. Of course the 
blacks were excluded altogether. Shall we accept them be¬ 
cause they are republican in form ? No, sir. A large por¬ 
tion of the people, in two of the States, at least, more than 
half, are excluded from all participation in them. Shall we 
accept them because they secure to those States only a fair 
proportion of Federal representation? No, sir; the repre¬ 
sented people in South Carolina and Mississippi secure a little 
more than twice as many votes in this House and in the 
Electoral College as are given to the same number of repre¬ 
sented people in Pennsylvania or any Northern State. Are 
we bound to accept them because they had a lawful origin ? 
What article of the Constitution or what law of Congress 
authorizes the President and his Secretary to start in the 
business of making State governments or to coerce and cajole 
a handful of the people to co-operate with them in such an 
undertaking ? Do you not recollect, Mr. Speaker, that in the 
summer of 1865, while Mr. Johnson and Mr. Seward were still 
reconstructing, our political opponents applied to their work 
the same three ugly words that they now apply to our plan, 
—“ unconstitutional, revolutionary, and despotic” ? Before 
they discovered how bad these governments would be, they 


156 


GLEAN I W. SCOFIELD. 


taught us the principles upon which they ought to be rejected. 
We were bound, then, by no principle of law, equality, or 
justice to accept these anti-republican productions of the 
President, and Congress rejected them by a majority of nearly 
three-fourths. The question was submitted to the people at 
the elections in the fall of 1866, and after four months* debate 
they endorsed the action of Congress by an emphatic vote. 
Inasmuch, then, as these governments were illegal in their 
origin (our opponents themselves being judges); inasmuch as 
they were never sanctioned by any considerable portion of the 
people, white or black, in those States; inasmuch as they 
secure to a disloyal population nearly double as much power 
in the Federal government as the same amount of loyal pop¬ 
ulation in other States possess, and inasmuch as they were 
rejected by nearly three-fourths of Congress, and that action 
endorsed by the people, I come to the conclusion that they 
are not governments which any man is bound by law or 
justice to respect. 

But the gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] thinks 
the decision of the people in 1866 is not conclusive. He 
infers from the elections of 1867 that public sentiment is 
changing, and that in 1868 a President and Congress will be 
chosen whose political opinions will coincide with his own. 
He is kind enough to inform us what will then be done. 
“ The enactments of the last six years,** says he, “ shall be 
repealed.** Humanity, justice, and equality shall be dethroned, 
and the old slave-power, unchristian, intolerant, insolent, and 
cruel, shall reign in their stead. Suppose your dreams were 
realized; suppose the people in an evil hour had put you in 
possession of all the departments of the government; sup¬ 
pose the gentlemen who during the last six years have 
wrought such terrible ruin in the South and brought such 
deep sorrow to the North and all the land were here to aid 
or lead, your efforts-; suppose the servile code restored, fugi- 


SPEECHES. 


157 


tive slave law and all; suppose the demolished slave prisons 
rebuilt, the rusty manacles reburnished, and the overseers en¬ 
gaged, how will the gentlemau secure his victims ? His legis¬ 
lative work will then be accomplished; his services will no 
longer be needed here. Imagine the gentleman then leaving 
his place and going home to ask his Christian constituents, 
learned through his instructions in the mysteries and measure¬ 
ment of shins and heels, to arm themselves with lassos and 
handcuffs and follow him in one grand hunt for emancipated 
bondsmen. The gentleman and his party, in great patience 
and meekness, have long labored fur the disloyal masters; 
but when this heavy task shall be imposed upon them it 
will be one hair too much even for their uncomplaining 
backs. This utterance of unattainable hopes brought to the 
gentleman’s seat many admiring friends. I could not hear 
the congratulations, but I can well imagine they were much 
like FalstafFs address to his prince: “ Thou wilt have no 
back seats for traitors and no free niggers in America when 
thou art king; wilt thou, Hal ?” 

Having shown that there are not now, and have not been 
since the close of the war, any legal constitutional governments 
in these States, I proceed to inquire .who should originate new 
ones. If I correctly understand gentlemen on the other side, 
they claim that new governments ought to originate with the 
people of the States. Very well, sir; how long shall we 
wait for these people to move? It is more than two years 
since the war closed, and no unprompted movement in that 
direction has been made by them to this hour. Oh, no; I 
mistake. They did elect a convention in Louisiana, and it 
will be recollected that there was great joy among the anti¬ 
progressives and back-going politicians when it was known 
that the delegates were mobbed and murdered, the conven¬ 
tion dispersed, and the popular movement crushed out. Sup¬ 
pose the people of South Carolina, for instance, would under- 


158 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


take to construct a government. The disloyal people might 
originate one, the blacks another, and the loyal white men 
another. Congress must determine at last which is the real 
government of the State, and this determination involves the 
exercise of the same power necessary to the passage of our 
reconstruction acts. But, as I said before, the people have 
not moved in this matter at all. There is, therefore, no 
alternative. Congress must call upon and authorize the peo¬ 
ple to reconstruct their governments or leave them either 
under military rule or rebel anarchy forever. On the 2d 
of March last Congress passed an act for this purpose. 
And what was it? Simply this: it authorized a major-gen¬ 
eral in the army to make a list of all the legal voters in a 
particular State, and call upon them to assemble on a day 
fixed and elect delegates of their own free choice to a con¬ 
vention which should frame and submit to them a form of 
State government. That, sir, was our reconstruction, and 
that was all of it. That is what is now pronounced uncon¬ 
stitutional, revolutionary, and despotic. I forgot, sir; that is 
not quite all. It authorized the officer, in the absence of gov¬ 
ernments, and in the midst of vindictive and lawless men, to 
preserve the peace until the new governments should come in 
power. Our opponents have found a few things to be mad at 
even in this simple formula. They charge that we omitted 
from the list of voters a large number of persons, simply 
because they waged a long and bloody war against a gov¬ 
ernment not only the best, but most lenient and munificent 
in the world. I deny it. Not one man was left off the list 
for this cause alone; and only a small number was left off 
for any cause. Those who committed treason, and in order 
to commit this crime first committed perjury, were left off, and 
no others. The number was comparatively small. The num¬ 
ber of white voters now registered under this law is only 
seventy-six thousand less than all the votes cast in these 


SPEECHES. 


159 


States in 1860, and is just about dnuble the number of voters 
that participated in the Johnson-Seward elections of 1865. 
When it is remembered that large numbers of those who 
voted in these States in 1860 have disappeared in the war, 
and thousands more have moved to Northern and Western 
States, it will appear that the number of perjured traitors 
omitted from the list is quite too small to justify such deep grief 
among their Northern friends. Again, it is alleged that we 
impose this plan upon the Southern people against their will. 
Not at all, sir. The law provides that the electors may, on 
the same day they vote for delegates, vote also for or against 
a convention. All who dislike this plan can vote against it. 
Then, sir, unless it had a majority of all the voters—not only 
a majority of all the votes cast, but a majority of all the legal 
voters in the State, counting those who from any cause omit 
to vote as against it—the whole plan falls to the ground. 
Again, when a constitution is framed it must be submitted to 
the people, and if a majority vote against it that is the end of 
it. What despotism is there in that ? 

But you have put the names of colored men upon your list 
of voters; why is that ? Mr. Speaker, there is a large num¬ 
ber of white voters in those States who are opposed to the con¬ 
tinuance of the Federal Union. They have not only so said, 
but leagued themselves together to destroy it. To be sure, 
the armed power of the Confederacy has been overthrown, 
but its memory and purpose are still enshrined in the hearts 
of its followers. They put their money in that cause and now 
hold its bonds and notes. Their affections, going out to their 
fallen kindred, are in it. Their honor is linked with it, and 
as they crave a good name in the future, they must forever 
defend it. The Confederacy is gone, but the cause survives 
and comes back to struggle through the ballot-box for a tri¬ 
umph not achieved in the field. They will vote no pension to 
the crippled soldier nor honors to the gallant captain. The 


160 


GLENN I W. SCOFIELD. 


colored people in the States, on the contrary, are interested in 
the preservation of the republic. They are grateful to it for 
liberty already conferred, and they look to it for future pro¬ 
tection. We allowed them to vote because we saw in their 
votes justice to the soldier and safety to the Union. They are 
not numerous enough to out-vote the disunionists, to be sure; 
but they are numerous enough to counteract in some degree 
their wicked purpose. It so happened, in the Providence of 
God, that in seeking the perpetuity and safety of the republic 
and the liberties vouchsafed to us all under it, we could do 
some little justice to a long-wronged but hard-working and 
meritorious class of our fellow-beings, and approximate more 
closely the great principle which underlies our form of govern¬ 
ment, to wit, the equality of the human race. We availed 
ourselves of this opportunity more, I fear, from necessity than 
from a sense of justice. This is “ what is called unconstitu¬ 
tional, revolutionary, and despotic.” 

A bill of a few lines, supplementary to the legislation of 
March last, is now made the occasion to renew this coarse and 
undeserved denunciation. What is the bill ? As long ago as 
last June the President discovered that the act of March was 
liable to be misconstrued or differently construed in the differ¬ 
ent districts of the South, and that no person was authorized 
to correct or unify these various constructions. We concur 
with the President. We propose to clothe an officer of the 
army, superior in rank to any now charged with the execu¬ 
tion of these laws, to supervise the whole, to detail officers and 
instruct them in their duties. It is in accordance with the 
President's suggestion. What possible objection can there be 
to that ? None, I suppose; at least I have heard none. But 
it is claimed that we have made a mistake in selecting the 
officer who is to perform these duties. We have devolved 
them upon the general of the army; whereas, it is said that 
the commander-in-chief would have been the fitter officer. 


SPEECHES. 


161 


To a plain man it would seem as if the gentlemen were trifling. 
The rules of the army authorize the captain to supervise his 
company and give orders to his inferior officers, the colonel 
his regiment, the brigadier his brigade, but the general of the 
army commands the whole. We impose duties and liabilities 
upon each grade of officers, but nobody ever before supposed 
that it violated the Constitution of the United States. 

The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Hubbard] says that 
the general of the army might order an inferior officer to one 
duty and the President order him to another at the same time. 
Does not that often occur? Has it not always occurred? 
The inferior must obey the commander-in-chief, but the 
commander-in-chief is answerable to his constitutional judges 
if he gives an order in violation of law. But there is another 
provision. It re-declares that the Johnson-Seward govern¬ 
ments are void. I have already shown that these govern¬ 
ments are void. Why should we not declare it by act of Con¬ 
gress? These are the simple and proper provisions which are 
so fiercely denounced as “ unconstitutional, revolutionary, and 
despotic.” From the other side of the House we do not hear 
even the gentlest admonition to the men who tore down and 
destroyed the old constitutional fabrics in these States; but 
every effort to rebuild them and restore the States to their old 
places in the Union is followed here with this unchanging 
cry, “Unconstitutional, revolutionary, and despotic!” and 
then, without apparent shame, they charge us with interposing 
the obstacles to the readmission of these States. 


162 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


SPEECH 

ON TIIE PURPOSE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , July 14, 1868. 


Mr. Chairman, —Which way are we moving ? Are we, 
as some persons apprehend and charge, drifting under party 
excitement and confusion, through misrule and usurpation, 
towards despotic government; or are we, though in the midst 
of the storm, but in spite of it, still holding a compass-line 
inside the words and spirit of the Constitution towards a more 
perfect development of republican government ? 

What line should we follow ? What is the fundamental 
theory of our government? The great men who laid its 
foundations held that “all men are created equal.” They 
proclaimed this sentiment in the face of a world heavily 
oppressed with inequality, rank, and privilege. They spoke 
and fought for it. Their eloquence and valor established it 
upon this continent. And that, I understand, is, or ought to 
be, the recognized theory of our government. It is a simple 
formula, a few words, a single principle, one idea; but upon 
it our fathers raised the fabric of the new government. It is 
that one idea which makes the government great, gradually 
rising above all other powers on the face of the earth; even 
in its infancy giving liberty and protection to forty million 
people at home, and reaching out a helping hand to the 
oppressed and humble all over the world. 

I know it is said that the founders of the republic did not 




SPEECHES. 


163 


really mean that all men are created equal, because they did 
not at first and at once confer equal rights upon all. It was 
impossible. Existing institutions, vested interests, erroneous 
convictions, and deep prejudices stood in the way. They 
went as far as they could then, as far as the public sentiment 
of their day would permit, and then holding to and advo¬ 
cating equal rights for all men as the correct Republican 
theory, awaited the fit times and opportunities and the proper 
development of the public sentiment, to make that theory 
more and more practical. Upon this theory they founded a 
new political party, which they called the “ Republican party.” 
This word indicated, as near as any one word in the language 
could, the commonality of all governmental rights. They 
added to this name the adjective “ progressive,” to indicate 
that they did not mean to go backward nor to stand still, but 
move forward on this theory of human rights. It was not 
many years before this “ progressive Republican party” came 
to control the country. 

See what was done. The slave-trade was interdicted and 
the trader declared a pirate. In many of the States slavery 
was abolished, and by an irrepealable ordinance all the terri¬ 
tory then held made free forever. The franchise was en¬ 
larged, and, except in the single State of New York, without 
distinction of race. Legislation could not make all men equal 
in talents; but it could give all an equal opportunity to culti¬ 
vate whatever God had been pleased to bestow, and therefore 
free schools were established. It could not make all men 
equal in wealth, but it could give all an equal chance to 
acquire it; and so imprisonment for debt was abolished, ex¬ 
emptions from execution allowed, and the laws of inheritance 
equalized. These great advances towards the equalization of 
governmental advantages were not secured without resistance. 
There were conservatives in those days as well as in ours. 
They saw ruin in every progressive step. The prohibition of 


164 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


the slave-trade would deprive the poor African heathen of a 
chance to hear the gospel and save his soul. The dedication 
of the Territories to freedom was sectional and unconstitutional. 
Non-imprisonment for debt and exemption from execution 
would both defraud the creditor and destroy the credit of the 
debtor. Free schools would burden the thrifty with taxes to 
educate the children of idlers. The enlargement of the fran¬ 
chise would be its degradation. But in spite of conservatism 
and its evil prophecy, the country improved, and, what is far 
more important, mankind improved. But conservatism did 
not surrender; it never does surrender. The “progressive 
Republican party” becoming in time divided into several 
parties upon temporary questions, and losing its distinctive 
name and organization, conservatism allied itself with the 
slave power, and obtained for the time the mastery over the 
several divisions. Immediately the brakes are whistled down; 
all progress stops. It is now found out that the great declara¬ 
tion of our fathers for equal political rights was “ a glittering 
generality,” “ a rhetorical flourish,” “an unmeaning abstrac¬ 
tion.” It is now found out that political distinctions are 
necessary; that political equality is a degrading level; that 
the law should assign duties to one class and privileges to 
another. The revival of this old doctrine was not received 
without objection among the disbanded progressives. Small 
dissenting parties began to spring up. The abolitionists, the 
equal rights party, the free Democracy, barn-burners, free- 
soilers, Benton Democrats, and others which escape my 
memory as I speak, from time to time and in various States 
attracted the attention of the public. 

They were numerous enough to exhibit the deep discontent 
of thinking, progressive men, but too feeble to resist the retro¬ 
grade movement inaugurated by the allied powers,—conserva¬ 
tism and slavery. In 1856 representatives of these various 
organizations, or rather of the sentiments indicated by them, 


SPEECHES. 


165 


met in Philadelphia, and then and there, in the old State 
House, in which the theory of political equality had been first 
proclaimed, formed a national party, pledged to take up the 
principles and carry forward the work of the fathers. They 
took the name which had been honored by the advocates of 
equal rights in the better days of the republic. • The friends of 
freedom and equality, all over the country, began to gather 
into this new organization, while the advocates of privilege, 
the conservatives, the anti-progressives, and the backgoers 
squatted at the feet of the slave power and assumed the mis¬ 
leading name of Democracy. These Philadelphia convention- 
ists assumed the name and reaffirmed the doctrine of the first 
Republican party, to wit: that “ all men are created equal,” 
but like that party they did not expect to secure to all men 
their equal rights at once. Centuries of vested wrongs still 
stood in the way. Reasserting the principles, holding fast to 
the liberties already acquired, they only proposed to move 
forward slowly, securing to the unprivileged classes, act by 
act and measure by measure, as time and opportunity should 
permit, greater influence and advantage in the government, 
until, in the course of time, in the distant future, the world 
should behold a great nation, in which every citizen, without 
exception or distinction, had secured to him his equal right to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,—a nation with no 
ignorant, no poor, no enslaved, no degraded class. 

It is now twelve years since this party was organized, and 
I submit that the history of the country proves that it has held 
steadily to its declared purpose. To give every child an equal 
chance of education, it has advocated and legislated, both in 
the States and Territories and in the District of Columbia, in 
favor of free schools. To give every man an equal chance to 
acquire property, the old Republican party, as I said before, 
abolished imprisonment for debt,, and made the necessaries of 
life exempt from execution. Following in these footsteps, the 


166 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


new Republican party, in the first year of its national triumph, 
secured to every landless man a one-hundred-and-sixty-acre 
farm without money and without price; and in the further 
practice of the same principle only last year it released the 
honest but broken debtor from the further pursuit of unrelent¬ 
ing credit. By an amendment to the Constitution, slavery in 
sixteen States, in the District of Columbia, and in all the vast 
Territories of the country has been abolished, and its restora¬ 
tion made impossible forever. AYe have many bright pages in 
our short history,—I trust we are to have many, more,—but 
the page that records this brief amendment will be the bright¬ 
est of them all. The franchise which lifts up the humble, 
protects the weak, educates the ignorant, and endows the 
poor, the synonyme of liberty and self-respect, has from time 
to time been greatly enlarged. Under Republican legislation 
the volunteer soldier retains his privilege and sends home his 
vote. One year’s service to the country endows the alien with 
the ballot. In twelve States, in all the Territories, and in the 
District of Columbia the franchise has been extended to all 
and without distinction of race, and the whole tendency of 
Republican debate and legislation has been towards an enlarge¬ 
ment of the franchise, without restriction, except for crime. 

All these measures look in one direction, and lead only to 
one result. They enlarge the rights, privileges, and opportu¬ 
nities of all the people, and subordinate the laws to the popu¬ 
lar will. That is not despotism, but freedom. These meas¬ 
ures may all be wrong, but if so, it is because the theory of 
popular government is wrong. I have a right, therefore, 
to conclude that the charge of despotic tendency, preferred 
against the Republican party, is entirely without foundation. 

It may be said that two of these measures—namely, the 
emancipation of the slaves in all the States, and their enfran¬ 
chisement in the eleven rebel States—have been too much 
hurried. The Republican party did not in the beginning 


SPEECHES. 


167 


intend to move so rapidly. Emancipation, which would 
withdraw from the enemy and add to us four million popula¬ 
tion, became a military necessity. The great purpose of the 
rebellion was to withdraw slavery from the wasting influence 
of the nineteenth century; to build it around with a new 
^nationality, and wall out the light and warmth of a Christian 
age. That motive could only be destroyed by the destruction 
of slavery itself, and we struck it a hurried but fatal blow. 
Premature enfranchisement, if premature it is, has been forced 
upon us for a similar reason. The returning rebels demanded 
two sets of Congressmen, all their own, and thirty-three more 
for the blacks, both sets to be elected exclusively by themselves. 
Under the amended Constitution the claim was legal. But 
such double power would enable them to vote down your 
soldiers* pensions, repudiate your plighted honor, force upon 
you the payment for emancipated slaves, and finally to master 
and redivide the Union. To break the strength of this dis¬ 
union element, we put the ballot in the hands of the loyal black 
man. Our own safety and the safety of the Union demanded 
it, but it is in accordance with the theory of our government, 
and if a little premature, time will soon overtake it. 

But you have passed laws restraining the power of the 
President! Where is the despotism of that? A despotic 
government is a one-man government,—all executive. How 
can restraints upon that one-man power be also despotic? 
They might be considered too Republican, too Democratic, 
but to call them despotic involves a contradiction. What are 
the facts ? During the war the President was clothed with 
extraordinary powers. The Democrats complained. They 
apprehended that these powers might be used to destroy the 
liberties of the people. At length the war was over, Mr. 
Johnson had come to be President, but the extraordinary 
powers'were still attached to the executive office. They were 
no longer needed, but were as dangerous as ever. Mr. John- 


168 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


son himself said, in his celebrated East Room speech, that he 
possessed power enough to make himself dictator. A great 
many people thought he intended to try it. Then Congress 
began to do what the Democrats claimed they should have done 
long before,—confine the executive power to its old peace 
limits. Then they complain again. To confer these powers 
was despotic; to recall them is despotic. One or the other 
complaint is unfounded. We could not be wrong each time. 
We were really right each time. It was proper that the 
President should have large powers to suppress the rebellion, 
and that these powers should be surrendered after the necessity 
was passed. 

But your mode of reconstructing the South is despotic! 
Hot so much so as yours, provided you adopt the President’s 
plan ; and you have adopted it. The President put the people 
of the South under military rule; Congress did not. We did 
not order the army there. We did not keep it there. We 
took no action till March 3, 1867. Up to that time the Presi¬ 
dent had his own way, and all this time he governed the 
South by the army. Till then his despotic will was law. He 
got up conventions. He selected the voters. He shaped the 
constitutions and declared them adopted. He allowed no 
popular vote. That was his plan. It was your plan. This 
was real despotism,—unrestrained one-man military power. 
Our plan was only a restraint upon yours. We did not order 
the army away, to be sure; but we put it under the control of 
law. We did not prohibit the assembling of conventions, but 
released them from the dictation of the President. We did 
not forbid constitutions to be framed, but required their sub¬ 
mission to the people. Your plan was to originate State gov¬ 
ernments in accordance with the President’s will,—ours in 
accordance with established law. 

But you are making encroachments upon the Supreme 
Court! A bill which requires the concurrence of two-thirds 


SPEECHES. 


169 


of the judges to declare a statute of the United States void 
was proposed, but never became a law. Suppose it had,— 
what despotism is there in that ? Who compose the Supreme 
Court? Usually nine judges. They are appointed by the 
President, and hold their offices for life. The people can 
change their Representatives once in two years, their Presi¬ 
dent once in four, and their Senators once in six; but the 
judges of this court are always beyond their reach. This 
is the only anti-republican, aristocratic, despotic feature in 
our government. While these judges are entirely above the 
influence of the people, they are not above the common pas¬ 
sions and infirmities of mankind. They are still politicians, 
as much so as Senators and Representatives, though not pro¬ 
gressive. They hold to whatever was uppermost when they 
were lifted out of politics to the bench. You can tell the 
politics of a judge by the date of his commission, and the 
date of his commission by his politics. They crystallize in 
the sentiments of their day and are changeless ever after. 
Some of them cannot even now realize that there has been a 
great war; and are trying to decide that a constable aud 
grand jury were equal to the “ late political disorder.” Some 
cannot realize that the slave power has been legally dethroned ; 
and are trying to retain in the legislation of the country at 
least a few memorial shreds of the odious institution. I 
have the best authority for saying that a majority of these 
judges have made up their minds that the “ legal-tender” law 
is unconstitutional, and will so decide in the cases now pend¬ 
ing in their court. I mention this fact, not for present criti¬ 
cism, but as an illustration of the vast power of these nine 
men over the fortunes of the people. Is a law that requires 
the agreement of one or two more judges before they make a 
decision that will ruin all the debtors of the country, by re¬ 
quiring them to pay their debts in gold, despotic? Every 
debtor in the country who now thinks such a law would be 


170 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


despotic will have reason to change his mind before he is two 
years older. 

Again, it is said that our legislation tends to centralization 
of power in the general government, and that centralization 
tends to despotism. I deny it. We have endeavored to pre¬ 
serve the union of the States, because individual liberty can 
be best secured in a single republic. The republic was di¬ 
vided before we came to power. On the 4th of March, 1861, 
Mr. Buchanan surrendered to Mr. Lincoln the Northern half, 
having surrendered the Southern half to Jefferson Davis 
nearly a month before. We found the Union dismembered, 
and we have restored it. We found it with slavery, the 
chief incentive to disunion, and we broke the chains of 
four million bondsmen. We found an hundred kinds of 
money that would not pass as many miles from home, and 
we have reduced them to one uniform system of equal value 
all over the land. We found the Pacific States separated 
from the East by a vast unoccupied country and growing 
up into isolated nationality, and we have stretched out great 
lines of railway to secure their commerce and hold their in¬ 
terests and affections in the Union. We found commerce 
between the States everywhere burdened and obstructed by 
local and illiberal State legislation, and we have undertaken 
some measures of relief. These enterprises, undertaken to 
preserve the harmony of the States and secure the growth 
and development of the whole country, are mistaken, by 
small politicians, for acts of centralization. 

In addition to carrying on a four-year war for the sup¬ 
pression of the rebellion, all these beneficent and permanent 
reforms have been secured during the short life of the Repub¬ 
lican party. Take as many years of Democratic administra¬ 
tion prior to that, and tell me what record you have left to 
awaken the gratitude or pride of the people. There stands 
the gallows upon which they immolated old John Brown, a 


SPEECHES. 


171 


brave but erring enthusiast of human freedom ; but its victim 
is more honored to-day than its cruel architects. Just beyond 
is the Dred Scott decision, rendered in violation of precedent, 
law, and Constitution, for the brutalization of four million 
Christian people. It has no friends now. Further on, you 
behold the Missouri compromise,—our fathers’ bond of Union, 
—the peace-offering of its day, repudiated, brokeu, and 
trampled under foot that the inhumanity of the hour might 
be without restraint. Standing around it, as fit witnesses of 
the wrong, are the “ border ruffian war,” the “Lecompton 
villany,” and the small tyrannies of Pierce and Buchanan. 
Still further down this dreary history stands the “ fugitive 
slave law,” to which every Democratic knee was wout to 
bow. Its manacles are broken now. Its bloodhounds no 
longer bay upon the track of its victims. No garlands crown 
its ugly brow. It has no worshippers, no admirers, no de¬ 
fenders, no apologists even. All have sneaked away. These 
are the monuments of three administrations. During all these 
weary years nothing was done by the predominant party to 
elevate and honor labor, to educate the poor, to lift up the 
fallen, to endow the landless, or to soften the cruelties of 
bondage. You cannot point to a single act that anybody 
will celebrate, that anybody will honor, that anybody will 
remember even except with regret or shame. 

The doctrine of political equality forms the great “ divide” 
between parties now, as heretofore. The conservative or anti¬ 
progressive element, always beaten, except when allied with 
the slave-power, takes heart from the complication of public 
affairs and enters the arena with new disguises. The remnant 
of the slave aristocracy rallies to its standard. The foiled 
secessionists extend their crimson hands, both to aid and to be 
aided. A great church, believing that the mass of mankind 
should be guided rather than educated , leads its vast flock, 
where otherwise we would least expect it, into the support of 


172 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


anti-republican distinctions. Many submit to the theory 
which degrades them, because it degrades others more than 
themselves. And many mistake license to the vicious for 
liberty to mankind. It is the old combination, so often beaten. 
There may be a few recruits; some few who have attained 
senatorial and judicial honors by the advocacy of equal rights, 
through the natural selfishness of the human heart, have 
come to believe in rank, since they havfe reached the highest. 
A few descendants of eminent men, unable by personal merit 
to command the position of their fathers, reject their fathers’ 
doctrine. John Quincy Adams was a progressive Republican, 
and his grandson is a conservative. The descendant claims 
by law what the ancestor acquired by desert. To these add 
a few natural grumblers, and you have the present Demo¬ 
cratic-conservative-sorehead-rebel party. 

Such elements can beheld together in a party of opposition, 
because a minority party need have no affirmative policy. 
They bring forward no measures of their own. It is their 
business to hold back, to oppose, to criticise, to denounce, to 
threaten, not to originate, to propose, to decide, or to act. To 
avoid present accountability for the past they even condemn 
their own history and acquiesce in the defeat of their own 
measures. They were opposed to the “Lecompton fraud” 
and “ border ruffian war”—after Kansas became a free State. 
They approved the homestead law—after it was enacted. 
They do not worship the fugitive-slave law—after it is re¬ 
pealed. They are in favor of the war—after it is over. 
They are opposed to slavery—after it is abolished. They 
will doubtless be opposed to repudiation—after the debt is 
paid, and in favor of universal suffrage—after everybody 
can vote. But they attack whatever is proposed by others, 
whatever is uppermost for the time being. During the last 
seven years they have done nothing but scold. Scolding is 
their vocation; their sovereign remedy for all public ills. 


SPEECHES. 


173 


They scolded the Union party when Buchanan divided the 
republic, and scolded harder when we attempted to restore it. 
If the army lacked men they would scold. If a draft was 
ordered to fill it they would scold. If the Treasury was empty 
they would scold. If taxes were levied they would scold. 
If a loan was attempted they would scold. If a battle was 
lost they would scold about mismanagement. If it was won 
about subjugating the South. They scolded terribly when 
three hundred dollars would commute the draft, and worse 
when the law was repealed. They scolded when greenbacks 
were issued, and scolded again when the issue was stopped. 
They scold when the rebel States are kept out, and scold 
when they are brought in. 

While this party remains in the minority, scolding may 
answer their purpose. It may even enlarge their numbers 
by the addition of malcontents and impracticable men. But 
if they carry the elections next fall, they must become actors 
instead of critics. What will they then do ? If they have 
been honest in their opposition to Republican measures, they 
must attempt to undo them all. They were opposed to co¬ 
ercion ; they must, therefore, restore the Confederacy and treat 
for terms of separation. They were opposed to emancipa¬ 
tion ; they must re-establish slavery. They were opposed to 
the amendment of the Constitution, which forbids payment for 
emancipated slaves and the assumption of rebel debts; they 
must, therefore, repeal it. They were opposed to the repeal 
of the fugitive-slave law; they must, therefore, re-enact it. 
They opposed the readmission of the eight reconstructed rebel 
States; they must therefore turn them out. Their candidate 
for Vice-President says they will, and that by revolution if 
they cannot by law. They were opposed to the enfranchise¬ 
ment of the colored people in the rebel States; they must 
therefore disfranchise them and leave the rebel power without 
check or division. They opposed the enfranchisement of the 


174 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


citizen soldiers, and they must be disfranchised also. It may 
be said they cannot accomplish all this. That is true, but 
they can try it. They must try it, because if they do not, it is 
a confession that they have all along been wrong, and we have 
all along been right, which is a confession that they ought to 
be defeated at the polls. They carried the Legislature of Ohio 
last fall, and immediately began the work of demolition. 
Their first attack was on the franchise. They at once with¬ 
drew from the soldier, the student, and the quadroon, whom 
they classed and proscribed together, the right to vote. Ohio 
had given her consent to the constitutional amendment, which 
makes the loyal States equal in representation in the Federal 
government to the rebel States, and prohibits payment for 
slaves and the assumption of rebel debts, but this Legislature 
revoked it. Suppose they fail in their efforts, how is the 
country to be benefited by a four years’ struggle over it? If 
they succeed, the old slave aristocracy becomes again the 
masters of the country. The defeated rebels become the 
political victors. Hampton and Forrest and Preston will be 
the honored soldiers at Washington, as they were in the New 
York convention, and Grant and Sherman and Sheridan will 
be discharged on parole. It is said they will not carry matters 
so far; the Northern wing of the party will moderate and 
restrain the insolence of the rebel wing. So we were told 
when Pierce and Buchanan were candidates, but after the 
election we soon found that the Southern Democrats con¬ 
trolled the Northern. Whether the Northern Democrats 
design it or not, it will be so again. 

But it is said this party can get us out of all financial trouble. 
The Southern wing got us into it, but how can they get us 
out? Will they pay it? They ought to do so, but they will 
not, and I suppose they cannot. They pay no taxes. They 
say they have nothing to pay with. They could do nothing, 
then, but tax us and dispose of our money. Why should they 


SPEECHES. 


175 


be selected for that office? When have they shown any finan¬ 
cial ability superior to Northern men ? They run the Con¬ 
federacy four years and two months, and so far from develop¬ 
ing financial ability, they developed a great lack of it. Their 
only schemes were forced loans, to be paid out of taxes on the 
loans themselves. Their currency became so worthless that 
they were forced to collect taxes in kind. They developed 
great military ability, I concede; but as financiers, they were 
total failures. It was always so. Before the war they bor¬ 
rowed from the North the money to improve their estates, 
build their railroads and public works, and it has been mostly 
paid in confiscation and bankruptcy. They might double your 
debt by adding theirs to it, but how would they, or could they, 
discharge it except by repudiation ? 

What could the Northern wing of the party do? They 
have had the administration and run the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment for the last three years. The whiskey tax that ought to 
yield ninety million dollars per year has, under their man¬ 
agement, yielded less than fourteen million dollars. They 
are in favor of free trade, so they would get nothing from 
customs. The internal taxes are now nearly all collected from 
whiskey, tobacco, banks, and incomes. Could they find any 
better sources of revenue? Would they take the tax from 
whiskey and put it on bread? From tobacco and put it on 
coffee ? From incomes and put it on labor ? Or would they 
abolish taxes altogether? How, then, could they relieve us of 
debt? No way, sir, except by fallowing their Southern wing 
into repudiation. That would be an expensive payment. It 
implies disgrace abroad, and distress, revolution, and anarchy 
at home. I have always thought the liberties of this country 
could not survive a repudiation of its debt. In my judgment 
it would produce a convulsion, which would end in the estab¬ 
lishment of a less popular form of government. 

But it is said again, they could tax the bonds. Very well. 


176 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


But why make that a party question any more than taxing 
whiskey or incomes? If all the bonds were taxed, including 
those held abroad, at the rate proposed,—that is, ten per cent, 
upon the interest in addition to the five per cent, already col¬ 
lected,—we could only realize from this source twelve million 
dollars. Compared with our other sources of revenue, this 
is a small sum. Why surrender the government, with all its 
financial, military, and political interests, to those who but 
three years ago were in arms to destroy it altogether, in order 
to secure so small a modification of the tax law? If the 
people think it best, upon full consideration, to levy this tax, 
can they not so instruct their Representatives in the several 
districts ? If General Grant is elected so as to give confidence 
in the stability of the government and the continued peace of 
the country, we can exchange our bonds for a long bond, 
bearing from one to two per cent, less interest. This would 
save to the country from twenty to thirty million dollars per 
year instead of twelve million. We would not only realize 
in this way more than as much again money, but avoid the 
charge of incipient repudiation. Why has that not been done 
already ? 

If you can tell me why God, in his providence, has seen fit 
to afflict this country with such a President as Andrew John¬ 
son, I can answer the question. For three years he has been 
sitting there, an obstruction to all proper legislation and admin¬ 
istration. If we propose a new bond, with low interest, he 
calls before him the correspondent of the London Times , and 
fills him with apprehensions of repudiation, to be scattered all 
over Europe. If we put a tax on whiskey, which, if honestly 
collected, would relieve us of all other internal taxes, he is 
careful to see that it never goes to the Treasury. He counsels 
with the bitterest opponents of the war, and plots with the 
bitterest rebels. Their common purpose seems to be to keep 
the country distracted; to defeat the reconstruction of the 


SPEECHES. 


177 


South; to advise, prompt, and aid resistance; to encourage 
mobs and murderers to fulfil their prophetic war of races; to 
keep the finances unsettled and business men in doubt; to 
worry the men who trusted the government when they would 
not, and make them unpopular with the people; to magnify 
the burdens of taxation, and thus confuse the judgment and 
tire the patience of the people. The more distress, real or 
imaginary, they can produce in the country, the greater will 
be their chances of political success. 

They make the trouble, and hold the Republicans responsi¬ 
ble for it. With Johnson controlling the Treasury and all the 
Executive Departments we can do nothing. He can, and will, 
and does thwart all our efforts. If the government now goes 
into the hands of the Southern rebels with only such restraints 
as their Northern allies choose to impose, capitalists will have 
no confidence in the maintenance of any new contract, and 
will make none. 

But it is said, again, that this party would pay off the bonds 
in greenbacks at once, and have done with interest. At pres¬ 
ent we have no surplus of greenbacks to pay with, and unless 
taxation is very much increased we will not have for several 
years to come. Whether the bonds shaK be paid in greenbacks 
or gold is a question for the future. It is not a question for 
this year or next. It may never be a question. Before we 
will be able to pay at all, or can be called on to pay, gold and 
greenbacks may and probably will be of equal value. It may 
become a troublesome question at some future day; but why 
anticipate the trouble? Do not the times furnish trouble 
enough without this? 

Yes ; but the Democrats would print greenbacks enough to 
pay off the bonds. That would give us two billion five hun¬ 
dred million dollars of currency at least; if the bank issue 
was still outstanding, two billion eight hundred million dol¬ 
lars. During the war the Democrats declared that in time it 


178 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


would take a cord of greenbacks to pay for a cord of wood. 
They would thus fulfil their own prophecy. Such a course 
would wipe out the bonds, but the public creditors would not 
be the only sufferers. It would discharge all private debts as 
well. But, like the Confederate currency, it would have little 
value except to pay debts, and after that nobody would take 
it. A debtor might sell a horse for enough to pay for a farm 
he purchased on credit the year before, but there the traffic 
would end; all trade would stop; all manufactures would 
stop; the poor would have no employment, and property 
command no price. But, after all, it might not effect a dis¬ 
charge of debts either public or private. Suppose the debtors 
should refuse to take it, and the Supreme Court should decide 
the law unconstitutional and void. That would bring every¬ 
body to specie payments at once. It is well understood that 
this court, as now organized, will ultimately render such a 
decision on the present legal-tender law. They only wait a 
favorable time. Such an avalanche of irredeemable paper 
might force the decision at once. 

As proof of the financial ability of this party, we are re¬ 
minded that in 1861 they left the country free from debt, and 
that under our administration a debt of two billion five hun¬ 
dred million dollars has been created. The statement is not 
quite true. They left the country in debt nearly one hundred 
million dollars in time of peace, and its credit so low that 
Howell Cobb, the Secretary of the Treasury, informed Con¬ 
gress in December, 1860, that he was unable, after repeated 
efforts, to borrow the little sum of ten million dollars. It is 
true, we have a large debt now; but who caused it? It will 
be admitted that the debt was created to suppress the rebellion, 
and the Southern wing of the party which now complains of it 
got up the rebellion to divide the Union. It ought also to be 
admitted, but I suppose will not be, that the rebellion was 
prompted and encouraged by a portion of the Northern wing. 


SPEECHES. 


179 


Upon some portion of the Democratic party, as at present 
organized, lies the whole responsibility of this rebellion. Is 
it fair, then, to hold us responsible for a debt caused by the 
misconduct of our opponents ? 

In 1863 there was a great anti-war riot in New York. To 
suppress it and repair damages cost the city a large sum of 
money. Suppose these rioters and their sympathetic friends, 
the next year, had formed a party and nominated a ticket to 
contest with the old officials the possession of the city govern¬ 
ment, would they have had the cheek to urge, as a reason for 
the change, that the debt of the city had been enlarged the 
year before? During the war the beautiful town of Cham- 
bersburg, in the State of Pennsylvania, was burned by the 
rebels. A large debt was created to rebuild it. Suppose these 
incendiaries had settled in Chambersburg after the war was 
over and had finally been placed on the Democratic ticket for 
local officers, would it have been altogether modest in them to 
urge the people to select them because the old officers had 
created this debt? If a discharged cashier, turning thief and 
robbing your bank, and thus entailing upon it a heavy debt, 
should, upon his return from the penitentiary, ask to be re¬ 
stored to his old place, and give as a reason that your bank 
was out of debt when he was discharged, and a large debt had 
been created by his successor, would you be likely to restore 
him ? And yet the impudence of the New York rioters, the 
Chambersburg incendiaries, and the discharged cashier would 
not be greater than that of the late rebels and their Northern 
allies, who ask to be restored to power because their own 
misconduct has forced the contraction of a large debt. 

The talk about relieving the country of its obligations 
means repudiation, or it is a deception. They cannot levy 
the taxes more judiciously, nor collect and apply them more 
honestly than anybody else. Their three years’ trial under 
Mr. Johnson has not developed any superior character in this 


180 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


direction. They certainly could not negotiate for a low rate 
of interest to advantage. Capitalists, knowing the debt will 
always be hateful to a large portion of their party, because it 
must ever remind them of their folly and humiliation, would 
fear to trust them. 

This portion of their party, to frighten the people into total 
or partial repudiation, constantly magnify the burden, and 
decry the ability of the country to discharge it. Why, Mr. 
Chairman, the amount of our property to-day is twenty-two 
billion dollars. Every twelve years it doubles. Our popula¬ 
tion is forty millions, and doubles every twenty-five years. 
The increase in the wealth of the country, as shown by an 
able and accurate mathematician, would pay the whole debt 
in two years. In twenty-five years from this time our popu¬ 
lation will be eighty millions, and our property worth eighty- 
six billion four hundred and fourteen million dollars. To 
our increased wealth and population the whole debt would be 
no more than one-fourth of it is to us. If, then, they mean 
repudiation, we do not need it and cannot afford it. If in any 
other respect they claim financial superiority, it is unfounded 
presumption. 

Aside from this question of finance, this party promise 
nothing except to fight over and fight backward the political 
battles of the last twelve years. Is the country prepared to 
embark in such a struggle? Do we want an administration 
which will not only resist all further progress, as Mr. Johnson 
has done, but undertake to work the country back, act by act, 
and measure by measure, to the days of Pierce and Buchanan ? 
Is any human being to be benefited by it ? Would it not be 
better to choose an administration which will not only hold 
fast to the liberty and privileges already secured to the people, 
but, as time and opportunity permit, move slowly forward on 
the great Republican doctrine of equal political rights ? 


SPEECHES. 


181 


SPEECH 

ON A BILL FOR THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives, January 27 , 1869 . 


Mr. Speaker, —What shall we have for money in this 
country ? I do not mean just now, while we are in a pinch, 
but in the future, when we become masters of the financial 
situation. Shall it be exclusively metallic ? I suppose not. 
There were at one time a few advocates of hard money in the 
country, but I know of none now. If not metallic, it must be 
paper? Then what kind of paper? Shall we revive State 
banking? I hope not. Its complexity, panics, failures, 
frauds, and counterfeits condemn it, and the Constitution, 
properly construed, forbids it. We are left, then, to a choice 
between United States notes, something like our greenbacks, 
and bank-notes, something like our national currency. Before 
we choose between them, each system should be amended, or 
considered as amended, so as to be what we would want it to 
be in case of its exclusive adoption. 

First. Banking should be free to all. Each bank should 
undertake to redeem its notes in coin upon demand, and give 
security for the undertaking. This would probably be a 
sufficient limitation as to the amount of currency. 

Second. A plan should be contrived by which the govern¬ 
ment would save as much, or nearly as much, less the expense, 
as if the notes were issued by the Treasury, instead of the 
banks. It is said this is the case now. Perhaps it is ; but it 




182 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


should be put in the form of reduced interest upon the bonds 
instead of taxes, so that we can all see exactly what is saved. 
Otherwise the wants of trade may be overlooked in the straits 
of the Treasury. With these, and perhaps other modifications 
of the national banking system, let us see which of the two 
kinds of paper is most desirable. The Treasury could have no 
choice, because the government would save or make as much 
on the one kind of paper as on the other. The bill-holder 
could have no choice, because his security in each case would 
be exactly the same, except that in the one case the responsi¬ 
bility of the corporation would be added to that of the gov¬ 
ernment,—an addition, perhaps, too trifling for consideration. 
Which, then, is best for trade ? Trade needs stability in 
prices. To make prices stable, the amount of currency and 
the amount of trade should always bear the same relation 
to each other. If the amount of trade varies during the 
year, or from year to year, the amount of currency should 
vary also. Otherwise prices would go up and down from 
mere excess or lack of currency. This want of trade has 
never been perfectly met by any system. It probably never 
will be. But the currency furnished by a free-banking sys¬ 
tem will supply it more nearly than any other. It is capable 
of expanding as trade expands, and contracting as trade con¬ 
tracts. Not so with a Treasury currency; that must expand 
and contract as laws are made or repealed by Congress. 
Congress cannot always guess what trade wants, nor be will¬ 
ing to respond to those wants, if it could. The necessities of 
the Treasury, the preparation for an election, or a change of 
the administration would generally dictate the increase or de¬ 
crease of currency. Legislation, thus controlled by political 
reasons, must necessarily be arbitrary and unseasonable. No 
business man would feel safe while Congress was in session. 
A line or two of law might wipe out half his securities or 
double his liabilities. Free banking, on the other hand, is 


SPEECHES. 


183 


self-regulating, or rather it is regulated by the demands of 
business. Its notes will be plenty when trade is brisk, and 
scarce when trade is dull, and thus prices will be kept stable. 

It has been supposed that this flexibility could be imparted 
to the Treasury currency by allowing the notes to be con¬ 
verted into bonds and the bonds into notes at the pleasure of 
the holder. The effect of this scheme would be very different, 
I apprehend, from its purpose. The notes and bonds, being 
convertible into each other, would always be of exactly the 
same value. Except in the convenience of handling, one 
would be as good a medium of exchange as the other. The 
result would be that nearly all the notes would be converted 
into bonds for the sake of the interest, and the bonds used in 
all large transactions in place of the notes. Substantially, the 
bonds would all become currency. It would make a great 
inflation of currency, and the government would be paying 
interest on nearly the whole of it. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] has given 
us the details of a plan based upon this principle. It provides 
that the holder of any portion of the bonds bearing six per 
cent, interest in coin may exchange the same for currency at 
the rate of ninety per cent, of its par value, and while the 
bonds are so deposited and exchanged, receive yearly interest 
thereon at the rate of two and thirty-five-hundredths per cent. 
A man having one thousand dollars could purchase with it a 
bond of the same amount, and at once deposit it and get back 
nine hundred dollars of his money. He would thus be out of 
pocket only one hundred dollars, but he would annually draw 
from the Treasury, as interest on his bond, at the rate of two 
and thirty-five-hundredths per cent., twenty-three dollars and 
fifty cents. 

The gentleman says there are one billion seven hundred and 
fifty million dollars of these convertible bonds. This large 
interest would cause them all to be converted, and we would 


184 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


thus have one billion five hundred and seventy-five million 
dollars of currency, beside the three hundred and fifty million 
dollars which the gentleman proposes to issue in advance in 
the place of greenbacks. If the whole one billion seven hun¬ 
dred and fifty million dollars were deposited, and ninety per 
cent, of their par value returned in currency, the bond-holders 
would be out of pocket one hundred and seventy-five million 
dollars, and would receive from the government as interest 
forty-one million one hundred and twenty-five thousand dol¬ 
lars. The interest upon their money actually invested would 
be twenty-three and fifty-hundredths per cent. The bond¬ 
holders would make a good deal of money by the operation, 
and the government would save some interest, but the country 
would be afflicted with one billion nine hundred and twenty- 
five million dollars of irredeemable paper. If you thus make 
it an object to convert the bonds, all will be converted, and 
we will have a destructive flood of paper. If holding the 
bonds pays best, the notes will be converted and the bonds 
used as currency. The inflation will be nearly as disastrous 
as in the other case, while the government must carry a heavier 
load of interest than ever before. 

To avoid this objection, it has been proposed to make only 
a limited amount of bonds and notes convertible. Within 
this limit the effect would be the same, with this additional 
disadvantage: all who desired to reduce the amount of cur¬ 
rency, either for speculation or to approximate specie pay¬ 
ments, would convert the notes and hold the bonds. They 
could afford to do this, because they would receive a fair 
interest upon the money, while they were at the same time 
securing what they would consider a more important end, to 
wit, a contraction of currency and fall of prices. 

When, then, we shall settle down to a specie-paying paper 
currency, I am inclined to give the preference to a system of 
national banking, free to all, and paying into the Treasury as 


SPEECHES. 


185 


much money as the government could save by issuing its own 
notes. No other system could make the bill-holder more 
secure, earn more for the Treasury, nor so well supply the 
wants of trade. 

This system cannot be adopted until after we resume specie 
payments; and this leads me to inquire how and when re¬ 
sumption shall begin. To answer this question, I will ask 
another: How much paper will our share of the world’s gold 
and silver keep afloat ? Before the war, under the old system 
of State banking, we were able to carry about two hundred 
million dollars. We can carry much more now, both be¬ 
cause the world has more specie now than it had then, and 
because we would require less specie, owing to our improved 
system of banking and securities, to float the same amount of 
paper. It is hard to say how much paper we could keep out, 
but I will suppose five hundred million dollars. This is a 
rough guess, designed as an illustration rather than as a state¬ 
ment of fact. On this supposition, the seven hundred million 
dollars of paper now out would diminish after resumption 
to five hundred million dollars, or to such other sum as 
would be shown by experience to be our maximum. Specie 
payments, then, involves a contraction of the currency. 

Whether this contraction should take place in advance, in 
preparation for, or follow as the effect of resumption, I do not 
care just here to consider. I am only asserting that we will 
have considerably less paper when we have specie payments 
than we have now. The effect of this contraction must be a 
fall in prices. Whenever we are prepared to submit to this, 
and take the consequences, we can find ways enough to bring 
it about. Many plans have been proposed, all feasible, 
though perhaps not all equally good. One is to resume at 
once, in the belief that gold will come into the Treasury as 
fast as it will be drawn out. Possibly this plan would suc¬ 
ceed. Possibly the Treasury would receive as much gold as 

13 * 


186 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


it would be required to pay out; but if we did continue to 
pay specie, I am quite sure we would soon reduce the amount 
of currency, prices would fall, and the debtor class suffer. 

Another plan is to fix a time of resumption, and save up 
enough gold to make it certain that we will be able to meet 
all demands. This would be pretty sure to enable us to con¬ 
tinue specie payments once begun; but it would not, as is 
supposed, enable us to float our present amount of paper. If 
we thus secured more gold than would ordinarily stay in this 
country, it would flow back to its accustomed pools as soon as 
it was put upon tap, and we would soon be left with as much 
paper currency as our proper share of the world’s gold would 
float, and no more. Low prices would follow as before. 
Another plan is to reduce the paper currency to an amount 
which we might suppose could be kept afloat, and then re¬ 
sume. The plan is good enough, but the effect would be 
precisely the same, a contracted currency and low prices. 
Another plan is to buy in or redeem the currency, beginning 
at about its present value in gold, and rising monthly in 
price, until we shall finally redeem it at its face. In the 
mean while we would pay out the notes as at present. This 
plan was introduced by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gar¬ 
field], and is as good as any. It avoids the danger of com¬ 
pulsory suspension, the expense of hoarding, and the uncer¬ 
tainty as to the amount to be retired. It is as gradual as 
any, and has this advantage over them all, that it foretells to 
the people exactly how fast prices will fall. 

But while this plan is as unobjectionable as any, it does not 
avoid the great fault (if fault it should be called) of them all, 
to wit, an ultimate contraction of the currency. It is because 
all these plans involve this result that all are rejected. We 
are seeking for a plan that will keep afloat our seven hundred 
million dollars of paper, and still redeem it in gold upon de¬ 
mand. We will seek in vain. It is not in the power of legis- 


SPEECHES. 


187 


lation. All the plans proposed, and all that can be proposed, 
are only different roads to the same goal. Some may be shorter 
than others, some more agreeable than others ; but travel which 
we will, we come to contraction and low prices at last. If low 
prices is the effect of resumption, when can we encounter them 
with the least injury? Most certainly when the people are 
least in debt. If nobody was in debt, nobody would be hurt 
by the change. To prepare for resumption, then, the people 
should endeavor to pay their debts while prices are still high. 
If Congress should take no steps towards resumption, the 
Supreme Court may. The argument over the constitution¬ 
ality of “ legal tenders” has ceased, and the court is deliber¬ 
ating. Nobody, I presume, not even the court itself, knows 
what the decision will be. The uncertainty of a jury verdict 
has passed into a proverb; but I would as lieve bet on the 
jury as the judge. Who can guess to what conclusion a mind 
educated in belligerent logic and professional subtlety, tempted 
at least—perhaps swayed—by personal ambition, may come? 
It is quite probable, however, the court may search out some 
theory by which to sustain the action of Congress, prompted 
by the terrible necessities of the war; but it is not so certain 
that it will attempt to clothe Congress in all future time with 
plenary power over all contracts, past, present, and future, and 
regardless of their terms and stipulations, to satisfy them with 
anything valuable or invaluable, paper, wood, leather, or any¬ 
thing else, that this body in its ingenuity can invent and call 
money. While this uncertainty hangs over the question, it 
behooves the people everywhere to take advantage of the 
high prices and liquidate their debts. Out of debt, out of 
danger. 

You see, Mr. Speaker, I am neither advocating nor oppos¬ 
ing these multitudinous plans of resumption. My object in 
rising at this time was to prove to the House that there can 
be no permanent resumption without contraction, and that all 


188 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


feasible plans of resumption lead directly or indirectly to that 
result. 

I think we had better not act upon any plan this short ses¬ 
sion. Standing still is a step towards resumption,—a very 
short step, I will admit; but still it is something. Every 
year adds to the world’s stock of gold and silver. Every year, 
by the increase of our population, makes our share of it larger. 
We can, therefore, float more paper on a specie basis next year 
than this. This furnishes a small excuse for waiting, but I 
kave a better one,—my constituents desire it. 


SPEECHES. 


189 


SPEECH 

ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO 
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 


Delivered in the Home of Representatives , January 29, 1869. 


Mr. Scofield said: 

Mr. Speaker, —Whether the five million colored population 
of the United States should be excluded from all participation 
in the elective franchise is not, in my opinion, an open ques¬ 
tion. It has been debated in these halls and before the country 
for four or five years. In different ways, directly or indi¬ 
rectly, it has been carried into all the recent elections, and the 
“ white man’s government” dogma has always been rejected. 
The time of enfranchisement, and the manner of enfranchise¬ 
ment, I will admit, are unsettled questions, but the underlying 
principle of universal suffrage has been approved over and 
over again. How stands the question practically to-day? 
Why, colored meD vote in twenty-two States of the Union, in 
the District of Columbia, and in all the Territories. In Ne¬ 
braska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, in five of the New Eng¬ 
land States, and in all the late Confederate States, eleven in 
number, there is no restriction. In New York they vote 
upon a property qualification, and in Ohio, by the decision of 
a Democratic court, upon admixture of blood. 

Mr. Mungen. — I want to say that this is not a Democratic 
decision. 




190 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Mr. Scofield. — I understand the decision was originally 
made by a Democratic bench. 

There are now left only fifteen States where the ballot is 
still withheld from men of color. It is not withheld there 
because a majority of the people condemn the principle, but 
because they did not consider that the opportune time for 
action had arrived, or because they had not yet agreed upon 
the extent and mode of enfranchisement. Enfranchisement 
has been coming along piecemeal, very much as emancipation 
came. Slavery was first abolished in the District; then in 
portions of the insurrectionary States by Mr. Lincoln’s proc¬ 
lamation; then in Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland, and 
Tennessee; and finally, by the thirteenth amendment of the 
Constitution, the institution itself, with all its cruelties, crimes, 
and blood, was buried out of sight of the Christian world 
forever. Enfranchisement has followed slowly but steadily. 
State after State, as time and opportunity and public sentiment 
would admit, has given its assent to the doctrine of universal 
suffrage, until, as I said, in twenty States, in the District of 
Columbia, and all the Territories, there is no exclusion on 
account of color. We propose now to give the people an 
opportunity to consider whether the time has not at last 
arrived when it is safe to put the great words of the Declara¬ 
tion of Independence in the Constitution itself. We are told 
that some of the States are not yet ready; that Connecticut, 
Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Kansas have so declared. That 
is not conclusive; Connecticut acted several years ago, and 
the majority was not large. The State would not have given 
its consent to emancipation a few years prior to that. In Ohio 
the question was coupled with the disfranchisement of deserters, 
and could not be decided upon its own merits. In Michigan 
it was buried beneath the weight of an unpopular constitution, 
of which it was only a single section. In Kansas it was sub¬ 
mitted with another question not yet ripe for action. It was 


SPEECHES. 


191 


voted down in all of these States, not, as I believe, because the 
people condemned it in the abstract, but because they thought 
it premature, or because they found it allied with some other 
undesirable measure. I believe they would all approve it next 
year in the form we propose to present it; at least they could 
not take offence because they are asked for “ the sober second 
thought.” 

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] proposes to attach 
to this proposition, which has been debated and considered, 
and, as I believe, substantially approved by the people, an 
undeserved and almost unsolicited act of grace to the cruel 
men who, for four years, drenched the land with blood, and 
whose implacable hate still pursues the unforgiven Unionist, 
with persecution, banishment, and murder. If we cannot send 
out for the people’s consideration this little boon, I should 
rather say this act of justice, too long withheld, to the faithful 
but humble friends of the Union, without again putting the 
elective power of the country in the hands of men who so lately 
foreswore and betrayed it, we had better not act at all. Both 
propositions would thus be defeated. If the gentleman thinks 
his proposition is so popular, let him try it by itself. There 
is no gentleman in the House to whom I listen with more 
pleasure than to my valued friend. He illustrates whatever 
he discusses. But even he cannot persuade the people to 
again confide in men who broke both fealty and oath in order 
to betray and destroy the country. Their forfeited lives and 
estates have been restored. Let them enjoy them. I shall 
not trouble myself to give back to them their old mastery at 
the polls. There is very little, indeed, to trouble any one. 
The number now excluded is very small. Outside of West 
Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri, no rebel, in any organized 
State, is deprived of the ballot. Everywhere else disloyal 
men swagger to the polls without let or hinderance. There 
were some small obstructions in Louisiana, Alabama, and 


192 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Georgia, as at first organized, but they have all been removed. 
In Tennessee the exclusion will be partially removed in 1871, 
and in Missouri the Legislature is authorized to remove it 
altogether after that date. So the friends of disloyal suffrage 
have small cause to complain. 


SPEECHES. 


193 


SPEECH 

Delivered at a Republican Mass-Meeting in Philadelphia, September 27, 
1869, as reported in the Philadelphia Press. 

The large meeting was addressed by many speakers, from 
three stands in the open air. 

In that campaign the Democrats were claiming that all the 
great questions which had divided parties daring the last 
twenty years had been substantially settled, and the only ques¬ 
tion for present consideration was one of honest administra¬ 
tion, and that such an administration could be best secured 
by a change of rulers. 

After a short speech by the President at one of the stands, 
Mr. Scofield was introduced and spoke as follows : 

Since the war has ended in the triumph of the national arms; 
since the country, territorially divided when we came into power, 
has been reunited ; since the State governments, destroyed by 
the rebellion, have been mostly rebuilt; since slavery has been 
abolished and the freedmen partially enfranchised; since the 
fourteenth amendment has provided that the Union soldier, 
his widow, and orphan shall have pensions and bounties, the 
Union creditor shall be paid, and the Confederate debt rejected ; 
since freedom of speech, the foundation of all other freedom, 
has been secured for all the people; since the national cur¬ 
rency, by which internal trade and travel is promoted, and 
whereby conflicting prejudices and interests are harmonized, 
and the union of the States cemented, has been established; 


194 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


since the Pacific road, promised by the first national conven¬ 
tion of the Republican party, has been completed; since all 
these and other purposes of the Republican party have been 
accomplished and the country started out on a new career of 
great prosperity; would it do any harm if the administration 
of these measures should now fall into the hands of men who, 
step by step, foot by foot, inch by inch, opposed their adoption ? 

If I concede that the Union is now too firmly cemented to 
be again sundered, even by another Buchanan administration; 
if I concede that the restoration of slavery is impossible and 
the recall of the franchise difficult; if I concede that the claims 
of the Union soldier and creditor could not be wholly repudi¬ 
ated under the fourteenth amendment; if I concede that the 
State banks, with their shaves and frauds and failures, could 
not be revived, nor the plan of a uniform currency wholly 
abandoned; if I concede that all our great reforms would 
survive, although placed in the control of hostile hands ; I 
would still like to know, before we make the surrender, 
which side of kindred and reformatory measures that must 
continually arise in a young country like ours this Demo¬ 
cratic party would take. Conceding that the past is safe, we 
still need some guarantees for the future. 

The Democratic party claims to be a conservative party. It 
so announces its character through its various conventions. 
As such, its leaders, newspapers, and debaters advocate and 
defend it. The word “ conservative” is placed before the 
word “ Democratic” in announcing a party name. In some 
of the States the party is called Conservative without the 
addition of Democratic. 

What does conservatism mean ? Opposition to the war, 
to emancipation, to reconstruction, to national currency, and 
Pacific railroads only? No, gentlemen; but opposition to 
all change, all progress, all reform. 

They say we are radical. What does that mean ? Going 


SPEECHES. 


195 


to the root of a principle,—following a theory to the end. It 
means progress, improvement, reform. 

A radical or progressive party and a conservative or anti¬ 
progressive party have always existed in this country. Indeed, 
they exist in all free countries. They exist in England to-day. 
Last year the English radicals were pressing an enlargement 
of the franchise and the conservatives there, as here, were op¬ 
posing it. This year the English radicals are advocating the 
disestablishment of the Irish church and the conservatives 
are again resisting. It is the province of a radical party to 
originate and advocate reforms, of a conservative party to 
criticise, ridicule, and denounce them. If these two parties 
were symbolized by a harness, the radicals would be the 
hames and the conservatives the breeching ; if symbolized by 
a railroad train, the radicals would be the locomotive, with the 
great forecasting light upon its brow, and the conservatives 
would be the breaks, with the little red lantern casting, from 
the rear end of the hindmost car, a lurid light upon the 
after-track. 

Of course, in such organizations, there are many degrees in 
sentiment on each side. The least radical and the least con¬ 
servative stand very near together; while the most radical and 
the most conservative are widest apart. I am not here to 
condemn the existence of a conservative party. On the con¬ 
trary, I think it is useful in its way and place. I do not re¬ 
ject the breaks nor the breeching. For some purposes they 
are as necessary as the hames and the locomotive. I hold, how¬ 
ever, that each should keep its place. The locomotive and the 
hames should be in the lead, because they are organized for 
progress, and the breaks and the breeching in the rear, because 
they are organized to resist. A conservative party, therefore, 
which is, in its nature, unenterprising, resistant, and preserva¬ 
tive only, should not be intrusted with the administration of 
a young and undeveloped country. A conservative party 


196 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


could not build a Pacific road, nor create a national currency, 
nor enlarge the franchise, nor build up domestic manufactures, 
nor abolish slavery, nor originate any other reform. If it 
undertook such work it would thereby become a radical, 
instead of a conservative, party. A conservative party may 
do good by exposing the foolish measures that are sometimes 
proposed, and by preventing the adoption of good ones too 
hastily. Criticism is necessary to good playing, but the 
critic is never himself a player. On the other hand, a radical 
party proposes, agitates, plans, and executes. It is always 
going, but, except for conservative criticism, it might some¬ 
times go wrong; and except for conservative breaks, it might 
sometimes go too fast. Yet it always moves forward, while a 
conservative always stands still or drifts backward. A con¬ 
servative administration might do for China, but not for 
America. 

I may be asked what is to be developed in the future. I 
will not undertake to foretell; but in a new country like this, 
principles and measures continually arise that need the admin¬ 
istration of progressive men. When we were struggling to 
keep slavery out of free territory, who imagined that the ques¬ 
tion of universal emancipation would be forced upon us so 
soon? When the English radicals were struggling for an 
enlargement of the franchise last year, who thought they 
would, this year, lead the great reform of Church ? 

There are now some impending questions and more loom¬ 
ing in the distance. The remuneration of labor is one. The 
working-people are struggling to lessen the hours of labor 
without diminishing its reward, that the poor may not be¬ 
come the mere slaves of toil nor the rich entirely freed from 
its necessity and blessing. The purpose is good. A radical 
Congress has sanctioned it so far as the government is con¬ 
cerned, by enacting that eight hours shall be a full day’s work 
and command full wages. 


SPEECHES. 


197 


Interstate commerce is another. Here and there, all over 
the country, some single State, generally a small one, throws 
its obstructing sovereignty across the track of domestic com¬ 
merce and imposes its terms. You cannot visit the capital 
of your cpuntry to-day unless you pay tribute to an interven¬ 
ing State. Commerce appeals to Congress for relief. Our 
fathers, with wonderful forethought, provided that Congress 
should have power to “ regulate commerce among the several 
States,” but conservatism comes in with objections. Conserv¬ 
atism always objects. It is a strict constructionist. It op¬ 
poses the purpose and therefore argues away the power. That 
awful State sovereignty must be respected. The little State 
must have its tribute and the nation must submit. 

The propriety of imparting to the legislation of the country, 
in some form and some degree, the elevating influence of 
woman ; the exclusion of the Chinese and other undesirable 
emigrants from the country; the abatement of the evils of 
intemperance, by such progressive and practical legislation as 
the public sentiment will sustain, and the devising of plans to 
render the civil service of the country independent of party 
success, are questions, even now, arising, but which can get 
no fair consideration by a party which does not believe in 
progress, and will reject them all simply because they are 
innovations. 

So, if the great reforms were safe in the hands of the con¬ 
servatives, they could not be trusted with the future. But 
they are not safe. The fifteenth amendment is not yet agreed 
to, and the fourteenth is still in dispute. Virginia, Mississippi, 
and Texas have not yet rebuilt their governments, and Georgia 
is in an anomalous position. The desire for disunion still 
exists in the South, though inactive for the present. They 
submit, but are not yet reconciled either to union or emanci¬ 
pation. They hate the Union debt, and would be glad of some 
way to avoid it. Why, then, should this new and unfinished 


198 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


work be put in the hands of its enemies ? When Fulton was 
slowly building his experimental steamer on the Hudson, he 
was the subject of ridicule by the captains and owners of te sail- 
craft.” They foretold its certain failure. “ It would not go,” 
they would say, a and it would blow up if it did.” When at 
last it was ready for the trial trip, would it have been safe or 
fair to take it from the hands of the great inventor and give 
it over to his mockers ? Of course they would have fulfilled 
their own prophecy. In their hands it would not go, or it 
would have blown up if it did. So it will be with our great 
work if handed over to the maladministration of its enemies. 
They might not re-establish slavery, but they would deprive 
the freedmen of education and the ballot. They might not 
repudiate the national debt, but under the disguise of currency 
payment and special taxes, they would so depreciate the na¬ 
tional credit that it could not be funded at a low rate of in¬ 
terest. They might not at once recall the national currency, 
but they would drown it out with State banks. They would 
not tear up the Pacific road, but they would not allow another 
to be made. They might not wholly repeal the tariff, but they 
would so modify it as to cripple manufacturers and lessen the 
wages of labor. No future reform could get even a hearing. 

If, then, the conservatives could not be safely trusted with 
the guardianship of the past, nor with the decision of impend¬ 
ing and coming questions, what good reason exists for placing 
the government under their control ? 

Will they collect their revenue more honestly or pay it out 
more economically than we will ? I do not suppose there is 
any higher personal integrity in the one party than in the 
other. Each has corrupt men, but they are not made so by 
their political opinions. No man is dishonest because he is a 
conservative, nor honest because he is a radical. What reason 
is there, then, for believing that the finances would be more 
honestly or prudently managed if the Democrats were in 


SPEECHES. 


199 


power ? I know of none. On the contrary, there is one reason 
for believing that they would not be managed nearly so well. 
That party has been very severe in its criticism upon the 
national debt, upon the purpose and manner of its creation, 
upon the time and mode of payment, and upon the kind and 
amount of interest. Some of them have gone so far as to say 
that the debt could never be paid. Some have gone still fur¬ 
ther, and claim that it ought not to be paid. They have been 
equally severe in criticising and misrepresenting the taxes. 
Not only have they exaggerated the burden of the taxes, but, 
in entire misapprehension of' the truth, have asserted that they 
were levied upon the poor; that they could not and ought 
not to be collected. They have also alleged that our whole 
financial system—internal revenue, tariff, currency, and all— 
ought to fail, and prophesied that it would fail. These criti¬ 
cisms, allegations, misrepresentations, and prophecies, although 
uttered, perhaps, with a view to party ascendency, have been 
so long continued that they have created in that party a senti¬ 
ment hostile to debt, taxes, tariff, and cucrency. They expect 
the debt to increase, the revenues to diminish, and the currency 
to break down. They have always foretold a general failure, 
and are now looking and almost longing for fulfilment. With 
such sentiments pervading the party in power nothing but 
maladministration could be expected. The revenues would 
diminish, the debt enlarge, and the expenses increase. The 
party would tolerate such results not because they would ap¬ 
prove of peculation, waste, or misappropriation of the public 
funds, but because they had been taught that the debt was un¬ 
just and taxes oppressive, and nothing better could be expected. 
The sentiment in the Republican party is just the reverse. 
They believe that the debt was necessarily contracted, and 
ought to be honestly paid ; that the taxes were discreetly levied, 
and ought to be carefully collected and economically expended. 
They believe that the debt can be paid, and expect to see it 


200 


QLENNI IF. SCOFIELD. 


diminish every month. They demand that of their public ser¬ 
vants, and will be satisfied with nothing less. 

This is not mere speculation. We have had an experiment. 
During the last years of Mr. Johnson’s administration the 
Democrats had control of the executive power. Their friends 
were appointed to collect and disburse the revenues. They 
were as honest, I suppose, as the average of such officers; 
but they had no public sentiment within their own party to 
call them to account; and all alarms raised by us were at¬ 
tributed to party warfare. The consequence was, the revenues 
constantly ran down and the debt as constantly rolled up. 
What did they care? Had they not always said that whiskey 
could not stagger under such a load of taxation and that such 
a monstrous debt could not be paid ? Their maladministra¬ 
tion justified their foresight. At length the administration 
came back to the party which had always claimed that the 
taxes were properly levied upon the luxuries and wealth of the 
country, and could and ought to be collected; and that the 
debt was contracted .for the preservation of the Union, and 
could and ought to be paid. And, lo ! the debt begins to di¬ 
minish. In six months forty-nine and a half millions have 
been paid. Why ? Because our party has more personal in¬ 
tegrity than the other? No, gentlemen, but because the public 
servants are accountable to a sentiment wffiich demands that 
the revenues shall be collected and the debt paid. 


SPEECHES . 


201 


SPEECH 

ON A BILL FOR THE REVISION OF THE TARIFF. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives, March 22, 1870. 


Mr. Scofield said: 

Mr. Chairman, —There is but one objection raised to the 
general purpose of this bill. There may be many objections 
to some of its details. The duty on particular articles may be 
deemed too high or too low; the free list may be considered 
too large or too small to properly carry out such purposes; but 
to the purposes themselves 1 have heard but a single objection. 

What are the purposes? The first purpose is to raise reve¬ 
nue. To this purpose there is no objection from any quarter. 
It is agreed on all sides that the tariff furnishes a cheap mode 
of raising revenue, and that of all modes it is the least offensive 
to the people. The one hundred and eighty million dollars in 
gold, derived last year from the tariff, gave far less vexation 
and offence to the people than the thirty-five million dollars 
in currency derived from incomes. Before the war nearly all 
the expenses of the government were paid by tariff. We 
differed then, as we differ now, about its terms; but it was 
agreed by everybody then, as it is by everybody now, that a 
large portion of the necessary revenue should be raised in this 
way. All other countries, as well as our own, have approved 
and practised the same system. All advocates of free trade 
make an exception in favor of revenue. 

Having agreed, then, to raise revenue by a tariff, because it 
14 




202 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


is found least offensive to the people and least expensive to the 
government, the question arises as to the propriety of departing, 
in any instance, from a strict revenue rule; of making some 
discriminations to effect some other beneficial though collateral 
purpose. 

We all agree to one departure. We all agree to levy the 
highest duties upon articles consumed by persons who are 
most able to pay taxes. This is a discrimination in favor of 
the poor. It is a departure from the revenue rule, but is so 
clearly just and beneficent that no one complains. 

Another departure is proposed. It is called a discrimination 
in favor of protection. Here comes in the objection to which 
I referred. Having agreed that we should have a tariff for rev¬ 
enue, having agreed also that it should discriminate in favor of 
the poor, we disagree about this second proposed discrimination. 
Except in the matter of details, I think we disagree about no 
other feature of the bill. Now, let us consider this difference. 

A large amount of capital, not less, it is estimated, than 
two hundred and fifty million dollars, is invested, outside of 
our country, in the manufacture of articles which are consumed 
within it. I refer now only to articles that might be made at 
home, if we had the labor and money here. This estimated 
amount includes only the sums directly employed in the busi¬ 
ness. If all the necessary collateral investments were to be 
taken into account, one billion dollars would be none too large. 
What good does this investment do the countries where it 
exists ? It pays into the foreign treasury many millions of 
taxes, and lightens to that extent the taxes on other property; 
it assists to build railroads, canals, and river improvement; it 
erects workshops, mills, and dwellings; it contributes to the 
school, the church, the college, the poor, the highway, and the 
state. But more than all this, it employs, supports, or gathers 
around it, in some dependent manner, five million of popula¬ 
tion. This population consists of capitalists, managers, engi- 


i 


SPEECHES. 


203 


neers, chemists, inventors, superintendents, mechanics, pro¬ 
ducers, and laborers. Such a population is necessarily intelli¬ 
gent, enterprising, moral, industrious, and thrifty. It is the 
best of foreign population and the very people most needed in 
this country. From their occupations and position in society 
they believe in and sympathize with republican institutions. 
If all this capital and population could be enticed to our shores 
and distributed equally over the country, it would give to each 
Congressional district more than one million dollars and add 
twenty thousand to its population. This sum would be much 
larger if the collateral or following investments were to be 
considered. 

Now, sir, why does not this vast capital and this most de¬ 
sirable population move to America and perform the work by 
the side of the market and the raw material ? Why does it not 
make railroads and canals, build towns and cities, pay taxes, 
and owe allegiance for and to the country that furnishes their 
material and consumes their manufactures? Is it because 
these enterprises cannot be conducted as cheaply and profitably 
in this country as any other? No, sir; food is cheaper here, 
cotton is cheaper, coal lands, ore lands, and nearly all un¬ 
worked materials are cheaper. Nothing is dear or scarce but 
labor and capital, the acquisition of which is the matter of 
consideration. Why, then, do not capital and labor come 
here of their own accord? Simply because it is invested and 
settled in the old country. If the capital was uninvested and 
the people unsettled, looking for a place to invest and settle, 
this country would be chosen at once. To sell out and move 
involves loss, time, and trouble. It would sink a large part 
of the capital. It is, cheaper to pay transportation both ways. 
And so it is that while we furnish both the raw material 
and the market for all this capital and manufacturing popula¬ 
tion, the old countries have all the advantages of their society, 
enterprise, taxes, and allegiance. 


204 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Now, we propose to induce this capital and population to 
move to America. We propose to do it by a little discrimina¬ 
tion in the terms of the tariff, which we have already agreed to 
levy, for other purposes. We propose to say to these manu¬ 
facturers, “ If you stay outside of our country, if you pay your 
taxes and give the benefit of your society, enterprise, and alle¬ 
giance to another country, we cannot put you on an equal 
footing in our market with those who pay taxes into our 
Treasury, help improve and develop our country in time of 
peace, and defend it in time of war. We have already agreed 
to put a small duty, for revenue only, upon your goods as 
they enter our ports; we will make it a little larger to furnish 
you an inducement to move to America, or to give those who 
do move a little advantage in our market over those who will 
not.” I do not expect that such an additional duty—so small 
an advantage—will induce these people and this wealth to 
come here at once. Valuable mills, shops, and dwellings can¬ 
not be abandoned and lost. To change these requires time; 
but all new enterprises, all capital that would rebuild or en¬ 
large, all young, unsettled, and adventurous mechanics and 
artisans, will come at once. In time all will come. In time 
it will be found cheaper to stand the loss of moving than 
to pay transportation, both ways, with the protective duty 
added. 

Now, sir, why should we not levy this small additional duty, 
and thus entice to our shores this great wealth and industry? 
Because, it is said, it will increase the cost of the imported 
articles. Admit it; but does not a duty, laid for revenue 
only, increase the cost also ? Do not all internal taxes have 
the same effect? Does not the tax on home manufactures, 
whiskey, or anything else, increase the price, after the tax is 
paid? Of course it does. All taxes raise the price of the 
articles upon which they are paid. If land is taxed, it will 
appear in the products of the farm; if railroads, in the cost of 


SPEECHES. 


205 


travel and price of freights; if merchandise, it must be made 
up in the sales. You cannot raise revenue and have its 
burden nowhere felt. If we are to levy no protective duty 
because it will raise the price, then, for the same reason, we 
are to levy no duty whatever; for the same reason, you can¬ 
not tax anything. While I admit that a protective tariff will 
raise the price to the consumer, in the same way that a revenue 
tariff will, I do not admit that it will raise it in the same 
degree. Home competition compels the foreign manufacturer 
to put down his price to the lowest point of profit; in other 
words, to stand a part of the duty; but the importer of 
articles for which there is no home competition charges up 
the whole duty to the consumer. This increased cost of pro¬ 
tected articles is the only objection that has been or can be 
raised to a protective tariff; but if that objection is to prevail, 
as I have already shown, we can have no revenue tariff and 
no internal taxes whatever. 

Compare, then, the disadvantage with the advantages of a 
protective discrimination. The only disadvantage claimed is 
the increase in price,—not large, not oppressive, not much 
above the increase from a revenue tariff to which all agree; 
an increase that is necessarily short-lived, diminishing con¬ 
stantly as foreign capital and labor move to this country, 
until it disappears altogether. Investment and competition 
at home, where living and materials are cheapest, must finally 
bring the price even below the foreign standard. 

The advantages are more numerous and more important. 

First. It brings to this country for investment in manu¬ 
factures and other enterprises many millions of capital. 

Second. It moves to this country a large and most desira¬ 
ble population. 

Third. It makes a large addition to the assessable wealth 
of the country, and thus lightens the burdens of national, 
State, and municipal taxation. 


206 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


Fourth. While it thus renders the country prosperous in 
time of peace, it makes it independent of all foreign nations 
in time of war. 

Fifth. It furnishes to the farmer and producing classes an 
increase of the present home market as large as the whole 
foreign market, with this superadded advantage, that this 
increase is beyond the reach of competition from the granaries 
of the Old World. 

Sixth. It avoids the fluctuations in the value of our money, 
occasioned by sending it abroad to liquidate balances of trade. 

The one disadvantage is small, little felt, and at worst 
temporary. The advantages are great, national, and lasting. 
The one is as the trouble of planting a tree; the other as the 
perpetual enjoyment of its shade and fruit; or as the labor 
of sowing a field compared with the plentiful harvest, thrift, 
and independence. 

Subsequently when the bill was being considered under the 
five-minute rule, on a pending amendment reducing the tariff 
on iron, Mr. Scofield said: 

Gentlemen complain that while iron has had the protection 
of a tariff for many years, the domestic producers are not yet 
able to undersell their foreign competitors. They infer from 
this that the claim set up that home competition will, ulti¬ 
mately, reduce the price of the manufacture, is not well 
founded. Such complainants have not properly considered 
how much preparation and how large expenditures are needed 
before this or any other great manufacture can be successfully 
started. Iron ore and coal are not usually found in the same 
locality, and neither of them in the neighborhood of a great 
central market. These treasures are usually deposited in the 
mountains and waste places of the earth. They must first be 
connected with each other, and then with some great market, 



SPEECHES. 


207 


by railroads or canals. This single interest, solitary and 
alone, cannot afford to construct great public highways. You 
must wait until other enterprises and other local interests can 
be combined with it before these expensive works can be 
begun, to say nothing of the time required in their construc¬ 
tion. It is true a single season and a small amount of capital 
will suffice for the furnace, but many years must elapse and 
many millions be expended before the raw materials and the 
market can be brought together and the skill and experience 
necessary to the cheap and economic manufacture acquired. 

My own district furnishes an apt illustration of this expla¬ 
nation. Within a hundred miles from the southern shore of 
Lake Erie are large deposits of bituminous coal, of excellent 
quality and exhaustless in amount. Within a less distance 
from the southern shore of Lake Superior are deposits of iron 
ore, yielding sixty-six per cent, of pure iron, exhaustless as 
the coal. This coal and ore are at last brought together 
along the shores of the lakes. Many furnaces have been 
built within the last few years. They are just beginning to 
throw their manufactures upon the market, and cheapen it, 
by the additional supply. 

Why did they not develop this trade twenty-five years ago 
under the tariff of 1842? Because it then cost too much in 
transportation to bring the ore and coal together, as well as to 
take the product to market. Expensive lines of railway had 
to be constructed from the coal to Lake Erie and from the 
iron ore to Lake Superior; harbors had to be made or im¬ 
proved ; a ship-canal had to be constructed around the rapids 
of Ste. Marie, and the St. Clair flats had to be scooped out. 
Such great enterprises must needs have time. But at last, 
after many years of effort, of partial failures and partial suc¬ 
cesses, the work is in a measure completed. The coal and 
iron have been brought together, and both connected with the 
centres of the iron trade. Development and enlargement are 


208 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


all that is now left to be done. The erection of furnaces and 
rolling-mills, the construction of lateral roads to unopened 
beds of ore and new fields of coal, and the enlargement of the 
shipping on the lakes is the work now in hand. 

But, it is said, you have been very slow about this. That 
is true; and why ? Capital is cautious, and every year you 
threaten it with a new rate of duty. It enters into these 
enterprises thus tardily because it dreads the uncertainties of 
politics. I asked an enterprising capitalist of the Democratic 
party why he did not build a rolling-mill. “ Because,” said 
he, “ if we elect Seymour, I may have to carry a transparency 
in a Democratic procession inscribed ‘Down with the mo¬ 
nopoly !’ That would not be pleasant if I owned the mo¬ 
nopoly.” Enterprise, capital, and labor have always been in 
doubt as to what the politicians would do. Hence they move 
very slowly, hesitate, and stop. They do not know what day 
they may be crushed by half a line of tariff, put through Con¬ 
gress under the cry of “ Down with the monopoly !” This 
cry really means down with home competition and up with 
foreign monopoly. If you want the iron interest to prosper 
and the country to prosper with it, let the tariff alone. The 
up and down policy is the worst of all policies. Better to be 
up or down than to be both by turns. Business needs cer¬ 
tainty, uniformity, steadiness. Then enterprise, labor, and 
capital can tell in what field of effort they may be most profit¬ 
ably employed. If you decide upon the low-tariff policy, and 
thus give to the foreign manufacturer the monopoly of your 
market, capital and labor will of course go abroad. If home 
competition is to be encouraged they will come to this country. 
They have a right to know where you intend they shall work. 
They have a right to demand that you shall not first, by a 
protective tariff, entice them to put up their workshops in 
America, and then by a repeal drive them away. 


SPEECHES. 


209 


SPEECH 

Delivered in the House of Representatives, June 25, 1870. 

The Speaker stated the regular order of business to be the 
consideration of a bill to admit the State of Georgia to repre¬ 
sentation in the Congress of the United States, returned from 
the Senate with sundry amendments, on which the gentleman 
from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts.— I yield whatever time I 
have left to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scot 
field]. 

The Speaker. —The gentleman has half an hour. 

Mr. Scofield.—I ask the Clerk to read the substitute 
moved by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Dawes]. 

(The Clerk read as follows: 

“Section 1 . And be it further enacted , That the State of Georgia 
having complied with the reconstruction acts, and the fourteenth and 
fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States having 
been ratified in good faith by a legal Legislature of said State, it is 
hereby declared that the State of Georgia is entitled to representation in 
the Congress of the United States.”) 

Mr. Speaker, I support that substitute. It is stripped of 
all conditions and involves only this question, Is it important 
that any law for the admission of Georgia should be enacted 
now or at any time ? According to the Democratic theory of 
treating the seceded States, it is not; but according to the 
Republican theory, it is indispensable. The Democrats have 
always held that these States have all the time been entitled to 


210 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


representation; that their Federal relations were never severed, 
and that all Congressional legislation upon that subject was 
unconstitutional and void. The Republicans, on the contrary, 
have held that all legitimate State government was destroyed 
by the rebellion, and that the relation of these people to the 
Federal government was similar to that held by the inhabi¬ 
tants of an unorganized Territory. To convert such a Terri¬ 
tory into a State required three successive steps in legislation : 

First, an organizing act creating a territorial government. 

Second, an enabling act authorizing the people to frame a 
constitution and elect officers preparatory to admission. 

Third, an act approving the constitution as republican in 
form, and admitting Senators and Representatives in Con¬ 
gress. 

Under different names we have applied this theory and its 
three legislative acts to the Confederate States. We have 
changed a few words, to reconcile those gentlemen who could 
not at first adopt the territorial theory. So “ territorial” is 
softened into “provisional/’ “enabling” into “reconstructive,” 
and “ admission” into “ restoration.” Whatever some persons 
may think, or however illogically they may reason upon the 
subject, the meaning is the same and the assumption of power 
the same. It is true that in dealing with these States we have 
not always exercised all the authority claimed under this theory. 
We have sometimes adopted governments which we did not 
authorize and called them provisional, and once admitted a 
State with a constitution which was not made in pursuance of 
Congressional authority; but the same irregularity has occurred 
in territorial history. 

Arkansas was originally admitted without an enabling act, 
and California without either an organizing or enabling act. 
These omissions are always supplied by legalizing the unau¬ 
thorized acts of the people; but the act of admission, the act 
by which a territorial or provisional government is converted 


SPEECHES. 


211 


into a State government, never has and, unless we abandon 
our whole political theory, never can be omitted. Our theory, 
then, requires that an act of admission or restoration should be 
passed at some time for the State of Georgia. On this side of 
the House, I suppose, we all agree about that. 

For this purpose a bill has been presented by the proper 
committee. This bill is opposed, not particularly on account 
of its form, not at all on account of its purpose, not because 
Georgia is not now prepared for admission, but because it is 
claimed that the State was admitted more than a year ago. 
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] thinks so. He 
is good authority with me, and I suppose I may say with all 
gentlemen on this side of the chamber. 

During the dark period of war and the troublesome period 
of reconstruction his brilliant debate resolved many questions 
of doubt. I trust always his honest purpose. But here is a 
question of fact. It is not intricate. It is not even difficult. 
It all depends upon the short act of June 25, 1868. If 
Georgia is not admitted under that act, it is not admitted at 
all. Nobody alleges that there is any other act under which 
Georgia might claim to have been restored. That act provides 
that Georgia shall be readmitted as a State after her Legisla¬ 
ture shall have done two things, to wit, ratified the fourteenth 
amendment, and u by solemn act declared’ 7 her assent to cer¬ 
tain fundamental conditions therein named. It is not claimed 
that this act admitted the State at the date of its passage, 
because it expressly postponed admission until after these two 
things should be done. But it is claimed that these things 
have since been done, and that the doing of them admitted 
the State. I presume they have been done, though the Senate 
decided that they were not. But that is not enough. The 
facts- 

Mr. Beaman. —When was it the Senate decided that they 
had not complied with these conditions? The Senate refused 



212 


GLENNl W. SCOFIELD . 


to admit Senators from Georgia because her Legislature had 
expelled the colored members of that Legislature. 

Mr. Scofield. —The gentleman is only talking about a 
fact. I am talking about the legal result. The Senate de¬ 
cided that there was not a legal Legislature, and, therefore, 
there could be no compliance with the prescribed conditions. 
That decision was based, in part at least, upon the fact stated 
by the gentleman. I will concede, for the sake of the argu¬ 
ment, that they were legally done. But that is not enough. 
The facts must be adjudicated by competent authority. It 
will not do to leave to courts to prove the facts each for itself. 
Some power must decide that the acts were done, and that de¬ 
cision must preclude all other inquiry. The fifteenth amend¬ 
ment was agreed to by three-fourths of the States some months 
ago, but nobody was authorized to act upon it as the law of 
the land until the 30th of March last. Why not ? All the 
necessary facts to make it a part of the Constitution existed ; 
but these facts were not adjudicated by competent authority 
and the result announced until then. 

So when a State is to be admitted, after certain acts are 
done, Congress, or somebody authorized by Congress, must 
examine and verify the facts before any such important event 
as the admission of a State can be based upon them. Before 
that adjudication every one is at liberty to hold his own opin¬ 
ion upon them and determine for himself whether the acts are 
properly done or not. This is a principle of universal appli¬ 
cation in all matters of law. 

But it is objected that if this rule is to prevail, the States of 
North and South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana 
have never been admitted. It is true that these States were 
also required to ratify the fourteenth amendment, but the law 
authorized the President to pass upon that fact and announce 
the result by proclamation. That has been done. The fact 
upon which admission depended was thus adjudicated and 


SPEECHES. 


213 


settled. By the terms of the act that proclamation admitted 
these States. Missouri, Nevada, and Nebraska were admitted 
in the same way. Besides, Congress has twice recognized the 
admission of these States, once by admitting their Representa¬ 
tives and once by counting their votes for President. Either 
one was enough. No particular form is necessary. But 
Georgia is in quite a different position. The act of 1868 re¬ 
quired certain things to be done in addition to ratifying the 
fourteenth amendment before admission, and no authority has 
yet adjudged that these things were done. The President was 
not authorized to decide it, and he did not undertake to do so. 
He was authorized to decide and declare the other fact, and 
did so, but was silent about this. 

But it is said that the State officers-elect and the United 
States military officers in Georgia decided it. It is true that 
these military officers did turn over the government to the civil 
officers-elect. It is also true that the civil officers assumed 
the authority, and went on legislating and governing Georgia 
as a real State until Congress passed the act of December 22, 
1869. They then decided that the State was not yet admitted, 
and dropped down from the supposed full-fledged State to a 
provisional condition. Great emphasis is placed upon this 
action both here and in the Senate. But what has it to do 
with this question? If a State can be admitted in this way, 
all the Confederate States were admitted some four or five 
years ago. Conventions were then called, constitutions framed, 
civil officers elected, and the government turned over to them 
by order of President Johnson. They claimed that they were 
restored, called themselves States, and went on legislating and 
governing as such till March 2, 1867. The President also 
claimed that they were restored, and advised Congress of the 
fact, and also advised them that nothing remained to be done 
except for Congress, each House acting separately and inde¬ 
pendent of the other, to admit Senators and Representatives. 


214 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Congress repudiated this advice. They solemnly declared on 
the 13th of December, 1865, that no State could be admitted 
or restored except by act of Congress. They repeated this 
declaration on the 20th of February, 1866, and again on the 
2d of March, 1867, and in divers other ways and times inter¬ 
mediate. Why, then, should we be told here what these 
gentlemen of Georgia thought and said and did about this 
question of admission ? They had no power over the ques¬ 
tion. But if they had, then their reverse decision since the 
act of December 22, 1869, would be the authoritative one. 
So that the gentlemen are ruled out by their own citation. 
Congress is the only body clothed with power to determine 
that question ; but as yet has never acted upon it. 

But it is said that Congress expected that Georgia would 
be admitted under the act of June 25, 1868, and that the con¬ 
struction which excludes her is more technical than substan¬ 
tial ; that Congress might with great propriety have waived 
this technical rule and treated the State as if regularly ad¬ 
mitted in July of that year. That is all true; but Congress 
chose to do otherwise. Therein lies the trouble. Instead of 
waiving this technical rule, as we might have done originally, 
and as, perhaps, we should have done; instead of treating her 
as an admitted State, our whole line of action and legislation 
has been based upon the opposite presumption. It is now too 
late to cover the irregularity by non-action alone. That might 
have been enough for the original deficiency; but to cure that, 
with all our subsequent action based upon it, demands now a 
positive act of admission. Has not anything been done by 
Congress to recognize Georgia as a State? No, sir; nothing. 
On the contrary, Congress has three times repudiated the idea 
that Georgia was restored by that or any other act. First, 
when they refused to admit her to representation in Congress. 
I know the House admitted the Representatives, but the Sen¬ 
ate refused. It is the same as if we had agreed to a concur- 


SPEECHES. 


215 


rent resolution for admission and the Senate rejected it. So 
far as it goes, it was an adjudication against her. Second, 
when both Houses refused to count her vote for President; 
that was another adverse adjudication. 

Mr. Jones, of Kentucky.—The gentleman seems to claim 
that the fact of Congress having refused to allow the electoral 
vote of Georgia to be counted was a reason why she was not a 
State in the Union. I ask the gentleman if that refusal was 
not conditional, and so announced by the Vice-President, who 
was the presiding officer of the joint session of the two 
Houses ? 

Mr. Scofield. —If the gentleman from Kentucky had paid 
careful attention to what I was saying he would have seen that 
I was not touching the point he has raised. I say that we 
need affirmative action for the readmission of a Confederate 
State. That is the Republican theory. The Democratic 
theory is the other way. Therefore, when Congress refused 
to count the vote, whatever reasons members might have had 
in their minds, which reasons do not appear upon record, there 
is an absence of this affirmative recognition. 

Mr. Jones, of Kentucky.—In the event, therefore, of the 
votes having been counted, there would have been affirmative 
action and a recognition of Georgia as a State in the Union ? 

Mr. Scofield. —Certainly. If we had counted the votes of 
Georgia as a State, that would have been a- Congressional recog¬ 
nition that Georgia had been admitted under the act of 1868. 

Mr. Jones, of Kentucky.—The vote of Georgia was to be 
counted in one event,—if it were necessary to the election of 
General Grant. 

Mr. Scofield. —No. The gentleman misunderstands the 
case or misstates it. The vote was to be counted in no event; 
but the effect that it would have had, if counted, was to be 
stated. 

Third, by the act of December 22, 1869, in which we 


216 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


not only treat the government as still provisional, but ex¬ 
pressly declare that Senators and Representatives shall not 
be admitted until after the Legislature shall have ratified the 
fifteenth amendment. The Executive Department has twice 
acted upon the same presumption ; first, in putting her under 
military authority after the act of December 22, 1869, and 
second, in refusing to count her as a State in the adoption of 
the fifteenth amendment. I claim, therefore, that Georgia 
could not have been admitted under the act of 1868 until it 
should be decided by Congress that she had compliedwith the 
conditions therein required. Congress has not so decided, but, 
on the contrary, has three times decided the other way. It is 
therefore necessary to pass an act of admission. That is the 
object of the pending bill. It is in the usual form, with the 
conditions applied to several other States. 

But here comes in another trouble. About two years ago 
the people of Georgia held an election under the enabling act 
of Congress, and selected persons to act as State officers after 
admission. Under the impression that the State was admitted, 
a part of these gentlemen, in July, 1868, entered upon the dis¬ 
charge of their duties, and continued to act as State officers 
until Congress passed the act of December 22, 1869, since 
which time they have been again called provisional. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as these gentlemen were 
elected about two years ago, and inasmuch as they have 
acted as provisional officers most of the time since, it is pro¬ 
posed that Congress shall, in the act admitting the State, order 
a new election. 

Before we act upon this proposition, certainly before we 
order a new election, we ought to consider the legal rights of 
the parties to be affected by it, to wit, the officers themselves, 
and the people who have elected them. The constitution of 
Georgia provides that the members of the Legislature shall 
hold their office for the term of two years and the governor 


SPEECHES. 


217 


for the term of four years. Congress approved this feature 
of the constitution as republican in form in July, 1868. In 
April, 1868, the people of Georgia held their first election. A 
governor and Legislature were chosen, but not to act as pro¬ 
visional officers during the time that might elapse before the 
State should be admitted. The people had no authority to do 
that, either from their own convention or from Congress. But 
they were expressly chosen to act as the first set of State officers 
whenever Georgia should be clothed with the dignity of a State. 
The commission from the people gave no authority to these 
gentlemen to do anything prior to the admission of the State 
except to await that admission. In the mean while Georgia 
was entirely under the control of the Federal government. 

That government might authorize, permit, or suffer these 
same gentlemen to act as provisional officers while awaiting 
admission, as has been done in other States both before and 
since, and in point of fact did so; but that did not enlarge or 
diminish their right or duties under the people’s commission. 
It follows, then, as a legal conclusion, that whenever the 
State is admitted the official term of these gentlemen begins, 
and not before. And then the constitution of Georgia pro¬ 
vides how long they shall continue. If the State was ad¬ 
mitted in 1868 their term began then, whether they entered 
upon their duties or not; but if admitted now their term 
begins now, however employed in the mean while. And if we 
now pass any act for the admission of the State it settles the 
whole question, because such an act is a Congressional decision 
that there was no such act in 1868, which Congressional de¬ 
cision, according to the Supreme Court decision in the case of 
Rhode Island, precludes all further inquiry. The constitu¬ 
tional result, therefore, of a simple act of admission is to 
authorize these officers-elect to enter upon the discharge of 
their duties, and to continue therein the full term prescribed 
by the constitution of Georgia. 

15 


218 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Now, if we intend to exclude these men from office, or to 
shorten their terms, we must do just what this amendment of 
the gentleman from Illinois proposes to do, order the State to 
hold a new election after its admission. This proposition 
involves two considerations. 

First. Have we the constitutional power thus to override, 
interdict, or interpret the constitution of Georgia in this 
particular? The Constitution of the United States clearly 
authorizes Congress to see that the constitution of a State 
applying for admission is republican in form. Hitherto we 
have gone no further than this. To be sure, we have not 
always agreed as to what a republican form of government is. 
The Constitution does not define it, and each one therefore 
sets up his own standard. Some members hold that a gov¬ 
ernment is not republican in form unless voting, office-holding, 
and education are equally open to all, and in prescribing con¬ 
ditions to the admission of a State have voted accordingly. 

The pending proposition goes much further than that. It 
assumes authority, I think, never before claimed, certainly 
never before exercised. It does not pretend to touch the 
form of government over which we have jurisdiction, but 
assumes control over matters purely ministerial. It assumes 
the right to dictate to a State when she shall hold her election 
for State officers, and how long these officers shall be per¬ 
mitted to act. In principle it assumes control over the entire 
ministerial machinery of a State government. The clause in 
the Constitution of the United States which gives us jurisdic¬ 
tion over the form of State government gives us none over 
its ministerial provisions. Perhaps, however, we have that 
power, derived from some other source. It is not now my 
purpose to deny it. But if, as many persons think, a condi¬ 
tion touching the form of government is scarcely constitu¬ 
tional, where can they find authority to prescribe a condition 
touching only a ministerial duty of the State? 


SPEECHES . 


219 


Second. But admitting that we have the power to turn these 
officers out aud order a new election, is it just and proper 
that we should use it ? They were fairly elected. I have 
shown that their term was to begin when the State should be 
admitted. I have shown that the State was not admitted in 
1868 ; that it ought to be admitted now, and that the consti¬ 
tutional result of such admission entitles these gentlemen to 
enter upon the discharge of their official duties and continue 
therein for the full term. Why should Congress interfere to 
exclude them ? 

Are they incapable ? It was said that the governor had 
once been a superintendent of an express company. That 
is no disparagement. It requires as much talent and char¬ 
acter for that position as it does for governor of any State in 
the Union. The bitterness with which he is pursued by the 
late enemies of the Union attests both his fidelity to the Con¬ 
stitution and his ability to foil their machinations against it. 
It was also said that some of the legislators were deficient in 
education. If that is so, whose fault is it except the fault of 
the complainants ? They made it a crime for these men to 
read either the Constitution or the Bible. They lock the 
fountains of knowledge and taunt their victims with igno¬ 
rance. They shut out the light of heaven and complain of 
imperfect sight. If this charge of ignorance was well founded 
these critics ought to be the last persons to make it, and the 
first to bear with, forgive, and overlook it. But it is not 
well founded. The criticised men have excellent natural 
capacity, considerable observation, education, and experience, 
and, withal, an earnest disposition to seek and do the right, 
even to th^jr former despoilers and present persecutors. 

Are they dishonest? Nothing of the kind has been alleged 
in this debate, much less proved. Vituperative language, 
insinuation of wrong, has been applied to the governor, but 
who in public life is exempt from that ? 


220 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Do they lack courage to meet the turbulent times and turbu¬ 
lent men of the State ? I understand not. On the contrary, 
they have stood up with wonderful firmness, and inspired 
the Union people with great patience, hope, and forbear¬ 
ance. They have exposed their own lives to protect the weak, 
and upheld the cause of the Union among the bold and 
reckless disturbers of the peace with which they are sur¬ 
rounded. Do they join hands with violent men for the oppres¬ 
sion of the people ? Are their names enrolled with the secret 
clans whose purpose is to threaten, intimidate, maltreat, and 
murder? No, sir. They and their friends are rather the 
victims of these ministers of darkness. All have suffered; 
many have fallen at the hands of these masked demons. 
These at least are beyond the reach of our friendly ostracism. 
Their enemies, the Kuklux, did the business. And in the 
dark councils of these malignant spirits our proposition to 
ostracize the survivors would pass with a yell. 

If, then, these officers are capable men, honest men, firm 
Union men, legally entitled to and not legally disqualified for 
these offices, why should we undertake to legislate them out ? 
Were they not fairly elected? No one denies it; but they 
were elected in 1868, it is said. So were you, Mr. Speaker, 
and all the rest of us, and they were elected for just this pur¬ 
pose,—namely, to come into office when the State should come 
into place. Do the electors repent of their choice?. No, sir. 
On the contrary, they entreat you through their newspapers, 
by public meetings, in private letters, and by representatives 
sent to your capital, not to set aside an election which on their 
side was so fairly conducted and so honestly and triumphantly 
won, though at the hazard of life. I know there are some 
political rivals, some malcontents, some soreheads who seek 
another chance of personal success. It is always so. All 
parties in all the States are afflicted with discontented and fac¬ 
tious men who always think the State is going to ruin if they 


SPEECHES. 


221 


are out of office. The men are fit, the people who elected 
them are content, the law as it now stands entitles them to 
office, and the constitution of Georgia defines their terms. 
What more can be found to complain of? 

Why, sir, it all comes down to this: by the permission or 
sufferance of the Federal government they have been acting 
as provisional officers for the last year and a half, part of that 
time in the belief that the State had been admitted. Why 
should that exclude them after the State shall be in fact ad¬ 
mitted? It is not pretended that it interposes a legal dis¬ 
qualification, nor that they are the worse for a little experience. 
They have held office a short time before! This at last is 
the great objection. It is a trifling objection. It does not 
become the Congress of this great republic to assume such 
extraordinary power to accomplish so small an object, even if 
the object were meritorious. But the object is not meritorious. 
The motives and argument of the case should incline us rather 
to the other side. If we were to interfere at all it should be 
to secure to these officers the places to which the people have 
called them during the constitutional term. We might then 
hope, not that the Union men in Georgia would be free from 
insult, attack, and assassination, but that an honest effort would 
be made to punish open, mid-day murder. 

Mr. Speaker, I have thus stated the history, the theory, the 
principle of the case. Let me again inquire what great pur¬ 
pose is to be subserved by this stretch of our constitutional 
power? When Congress provided that all contracts should 
be satisfied with government promises, not then and not yet 
redeemable, a great many patriotic people feared that we had 
exceeded our power. When Mr. Lincoln issued his great 
proclamation of freedom its constitutionality was questioned 
even by some of its advisers. But here was a great purpose, 
the preservation of the republic and the elevation of a long- 
injured race. The constitutional question was lost in the 


222 


GLENNl W. SCOFIELD. 


magnitude of the purpose. What great national or humane 
purpose is contemplated by this proposition? None, sir; 
none. We assume unusual power, unconceded power; we go 
further than Congress has ever gone before, not to save a 
nation, not to lift up a race, but to filch a few months from 
the constitutional terms of the officers-elect for an incoming 
State. Our political enemies support it. They have often 
charged us with assuming extraordinary power during the 
terrible struggle with the rebellion. They go much further 
now. Let us not follow them into this untrodden field of 
questionable power for the mere purpose of attacking our 
friends. 



REMARKS. 


223 


KEMARKS 


Made at the Congressional Convention which met at Ridgeway in 1870 . 


August 2, 1870, Mr. Scofield was nominated for his fifth 
term in Congress. The following report of the proceedings 
and Mr. Scofield’s remarks are copied from the Titusville 
Herald: 

General Kane, of McKean County, was made president of 
the convention, and A. D. Wood, of Warren, and M. W. 
Caughey, of Erie, secretaries. 

General Kane, on taking the chair, thanked the convention 
and complimented Hon. G. W. Scofield, our present member 
of Congress* William Griffith, Esq., of Erie County, also 
spoke in complimentary terms, and moved his renomination 
by the convention. The motion was carried by acclamation. 
Judge Scofield, on being notified of his renomination, appeared 
before the convention, and made some extended remarks. 

He thanked the convention for the nomination, and said he 
accepted it because he knew it was freely bestowed, both by 
the convention and the patriotic and intelligent people whose 
delegates they were. If elected he should endeavor to prove 
to them that the fact that he had nothing more to expect at 
their hands—for he would not again be a candidate—did not 
lessen his zeal in support of their principles nor his attention 
to their personal wants. He discussed briefly the political 
situation. 


224 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


The military history of the world, he said, presents number¬ 
less instances of a great victory, won by long suffering, skill, 
and valor, and suddenly turned into defeat by the carelessness 
of the victors. It is always the same story. Instead of hold¬ 
ing their position until the fruits of the victory are well 
secured, they give themselves up to rest, to rejoicing, and to 
disputes about the division of glory or spoils. The vanquished 
army sees the situation, regains its courage, rallies its retreat¬ 
ing battalions, and at a single blow recovers the day. 

The Republican party is just now in its dangerous hour of 
triumph. It is victorious at all points, but its great princi¬ 
ples, purposes, and measures are not all, nor nearly all, beyond 
the power of hostile administration. The first great question 
which confronted it upon assuming power in 1861 was the 
right to coerce a rebel State. Against the armed opposition of 
the whole South, and the earnest protest of the whole Demo¬ 
cratic party in the North, we decided it in the affirmative. That 
decision secured the final restoration of the Union. But from 
that day to this it has never received the sanction of our political 
opponents. On the contrary, their conventions have endorsed 
the opposite doctrine contained in the Virginia resolutions of 
1798. Nor has a single principle involved in the war been 
endorsed by that party. Upon their records all that glorious 
history is still branded as “ unconstitutional, revolutionary, and 
void.” Emancipation was bitterly opposed, and in their plat¬ 
forms still stands condemned. Their resolutions, speeches, 
tracts, and sermons in favor of the cruelest bondage that ever 
disgraced the earth have never been expunged by any repenting 
expressions of opinion. The fourteenth and fifteenth amend¬ 
ments were repudiated, and their legal adoption denied no 
longer ago than last month, in the House of Representatives, 
by the recorded vote of the whole party. The reconstruction of 
the Confederate States is now completed. The Union people 
are thus placed in a position of comparative safety. But all 


REMARKS. 


225 


this work, too, is branded as “ unconstitutional, revolutionary, 
and void.” The financial problem is not yet solved. We have 
agreed to a national currency, equally valuable all over the 
Union, a currency by which we are exempt from the financial 
panics that formerly destroyed all business every few years, 
and still afflict the rest of the world, but it is still incomplete. 
The whole thing has been steadily condemned by the oppo¬ 
sition. We have at last a law to fund the debt at a low rate 
of interest, but if a party tainted in the least with repudiation 
acquires any considerable power in the country, the capitalists 
will not touch it. 

The Republican party is indeed triumphant, but it is not in 
a situation to relax its vigilance. Its great work is not in a 
condition to be turned over to the maladministration of its 
enemies. The enemy is now stronger than ever. The Demo¬ 
crats of the North have joined their forces with the rebels of 
the South. They are numerous, united, hopeful, and active. 
Their central committee at Washington has issued an address 
of counsel and cheer. They claim that the Republicans are 
demoralized, that our leaders are ready to betray us, and call 
upon their broken columns to rally for another struggle. 
They hope to carry the next House of Representatives and 
many of the State Legislatures. This will enable them to 
block all Republican legislation at Washington, and district 
the States, after the next census, in their own interest. If we 
wish to secure to the country the fruits of our victories, if we 
wish to crystallize our great principles and measures into the 
legislation of the country, we must not allow ourselves to be 
diverted from that purpose by personal bickerings and private 
griefs of leaders. Personal rivalry and personal ambition 
exist, and always will exist, in all parties, and among the 
most meritorious and patriotic citizens. It is all right. But 
the disinterested people should see to it that such struggles are 
not allowed to endanger the triumph of great principles. The 


226 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


national administration is fulfilling the pledges made before 
the election. Under President Johnson the taxes were high, 
but the debt was all the time increasing. We promised to 
reduce both the taxes and the debt. We have done both. 
One hundred and fifty millions of the debt have been paid 
since General Grant became President, and the internal taxes 
have been reduced in all more than one-half. Seventy-five 
millions were taken from the burdens of the people by this 
last session of Congress. There are but six items of internal 
taxes left, to wit, spirits, tobacco, banks, incomes, gas, and 
stamps. Even these have been reduced more than half, and 
no doubt the economy of the present administration will en¬ 
able Congress at its next session to repeal the whole, except, 
perhaps, on whiskey and tobacco. 

But while the Republican party, during its nine years of 
administration, has carried the country successfully through 
the greatest civil war the world has ever known, while it has 
converted four millions of down-trodden bondsmen into in¬ 
dustrious, peaceful, happy citizens, while it has reconstructed 
the South and started it out on a new career of righteous 
prosperity, while it has originated a currency which still in 
its imperfect state possesses equal value all over the Union 
and preserves our country from the financial crises to which 
we were formerly exposed and to which all other countries are 
still subject, while it has been devising means to raise the 
credit of the government and relieve the people of taxes, 
while it has been protecting home labor and building up 
home manufactures, by a proper system of duties on imports, 
it has also found time to look after all the great interests 
of the country, and to originate other reformatory legislation 
not strictly of a party character. The last war with Great 
Britain was fought to maintain the right of expatriation. 
But when the war closed the question was left unsettled. 
Great Britain still held, as did all the other European powers, 


REMARKS. 


227 


that a person born upon their soil continued to owe allegiance 
to the native country, although he might have become a citi¬ 
zen of the United States. We have lately concluded treaties 
with all these nations, in which they concede the right of 
expatriation. Our adopted citizens can now travel abroad 
without danger of being held liable to military duty in the 
Fatherland. The election of United States Senators has 
always been a source of strife and fraud. Under the old sys¬ 
tem of choosing, whenever the two branches of the Legisla¬ 
ture differed in political opinion, or about the merits of candi¬ 
dates, the minority would refuse to enter into joint convention, 
and thus indefinitely postpone an election. All this has been 
remedied by act of Congress, the constitutionality and pro¬ 
priety of which nobody doubts. A bill has passed both Houses, 
though it has not yet become a law, providing for Congres¬ 
sional elections on the same day all over the Union. We 
have already a similar law for the election of President. 
The States will soon conform their election to this law, and 
thus the system of colonizing voters will be broken up. Con¬ 
structive mileage, an old abuse, has been abolished, and the 
franking privilege, a kindred abuse, has received a black eye 
in the House, and cannot long survive its twin relic of petty 
plunder. We have provided that the honest but unfortunate 
debtor shall not forever be subject to the exactions of creditors, 
and that the landless emigrant to the West may take one hun¬ 
dred and sixty acres from Uncle Sam’s great farm without 
money and without price. 

These, he remarked, were only specimens of the progressive 
and reformatory legislation inaugurated by the Republican 
party which occurred to him as he spoke. There was much 
more of a kindred character. 


228 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


SPEECH 

ON A BILL TO REVISE RELATIVE RANK IN THE NAVY. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , January 24, 1871. 


Mr. Speaker, —I feel constrained to vote against this bill, 
but not because I undervalue the officers whom it attempts to 
grade. It undertakes to create ranks and titles of mere honor, 
entirely independent of and separate from the duties of the 
officers who bear them. I cannot bring my mind to approve 
the principle. It seems to me to be repugnant not only to the 
spirit of the Constitution but to the underlying theory of 
republican government. I will endeavor to explain the pur¬ 
pose and operation of the bill. 

The duties of the navy are separated into various depart¬ 
ments. The officers who perform the duties of each depart¬ 
ment are called a corps, and each corps has a name significant 
of its duties. The officers who command ships are called the 
line corps, the officers who take charge of sanitary affairs are 
called the medical corps, the officers wffio purchase supplies 
and pay the men are called the pay corps, and officers who 
take charge of the steam machinery are called the engineer 
corps, and so on. The duties of each department are again 
subdivided and classified according to the supposed amount of 
experience, skill, and ability required to perform them. 

Each of these classifications of duties has also an appropri¬ 
ate name. That name becomes the title of the officer who 
performs them. So when you hear the title of a naval officer 




SPEECHES. 


229 


you know at once not only to what department or corps he 
belongs, but also what class of duties he performs in that 
corps. When an officer has the title of captain, you know he 
belongs to the line corps and commands a second-class ship. 
When of commander, you know he belongs to the same corps, 
but commands a third-class ship. As we have quite a num¬ 
ber of ships of the second and third classes, we must have at 
least an equal number of captains and commanders to take 
charge of them. These several captains constitute the row, 
line, or rank of captains. The several commanders constitute 
the row, line, or rank of commanders, and so on. When an 
officer has the title of chief engineer, you know in the same 
way to what corps he belongs and what class of duties he per¬ 
forms in the corps. And as the service requires many chief 
engineers, they constitute the rank for that class of duties. 
The same may be said of every other corps. Each corps, 
therefore, has its own ranks. The title which an officer bears 
indicates and defines his duties as much as that of sheriff or 
prothonotary in the civil service. It is given to him for that 
purpose, and that alone. It was not designed to be, and is 
not in any sense, a title of honor. It may be honorable, 
because the good behavior of the men who have borne it have 
made it so, but the law gives it no such quality. It is a title 
of utility, of necessity, of definition, only. 

But, in addition to these ranks or titles, another rank or 
quasi rank, has crept into the service. It is called relative or 
assimilated rank. It does not designate duties, nor impose 
responsibility, nor limit authority, like the other. It deals in 
honor only. It undertakes to compare the several offices or 
classification of duties in the several corps, and declare the 
relative degree of importance that should attach to each. It 
undertakes to say that a chief engineer shall be esteemed in 
law as of as much consequence as a surgeon, and that both 
shall stand as high in the scale of honor as a commander in 


230 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


the line corps. Let me illustrate by a comparison with the 
civil service. The United States judiciary consists of a chief 
justice, justices of the Supreme Court, circuit judges, district 
judges, and commissioners. We will call it the line corps of 
the civil service. Now, if we were to compare the legislative 
branch with the judiciary, and institute degrees of honor as 
we have already done in the navy, we would begin by enact¬ 
ing that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House should be esteemed of as much importance as the chief 
justice, or, in naval language, should rank with the chief jus¬ 
tice; that Senators should rank with justices of the Supreme 
Court, Representatives with circuit judges, the chief clerks 
with district judges, and the executive officers with commis¬ 
sioners. Absurd as this would be, we have, nevertheless, 
enacted just such a law for the navy, for just that purpose and 
no other. 

I know the advocates of this law are ashamed to defend its 
real and only purpose, and endeavor to show that it is partly 
based upon convenience. It is said that it assists an officer if 
summoned to a court-martial or to a funeral to find his proper 
place on the bench or in the procession. But that is merely 
an excuse. They can take their seats upon the bench in the 
order in which they are named in the commission, and the 
marshal can tell them where to fall in at a funeral. Besides, 
it is a consolation to know that if they should happen to get a 
little too far forward or too far behind it would be of no sort 
of consequence either to the country or the corpse. It is also 
said, as an excuse, that they have this rank in foreign navies. 
That is true; but the whole government, civil as well as mili¬ 
tary, and the whole structure of society there, are based upon 
ranks of honor. They may be suitable in an aristocracy, but 
they are an anomaly in a republic. And to the credit of the 
representatives of a plain, untitled people, be it said that this 
honorary rank never had its origin in Congress. It crept into 


SPEECHES. 


231 


the service through the Department, and its legalization slipped 
through Congress almost unobserved. But the law is there. 
I am not now proposing to repeal it. It is anti-republican, 
but let it go. 

But what is the matter now? Why have we another 
long bill upon that subject? What now is wanted? Two 
things. 

First, a revision and readjustment of these degrees of honor. 
The creation of these honorary ranks did not give as much 
happiness to the navy as was expected. It produced only 
jealousy and strife. Nobody was satisfied with the estimate 
put upon him by the law except those who stood at the top. 
Even they could not look down upon their envious inferiors 
with as much serenity as might have been expected. It only 
made them the subjects of criticisms. Those who were not 
included at all in this honorary classification of course felt 
neglected and dissatisfied. It was not long before a revision 
was asked for and undertaken, and then another and another; 
but each modification only increased the dissatisfaction. This 
bill proposes another revision. Its friends imagine they have 
found at last the exact measure of honor. They attempt to 
give to each officer his quantum meruit of that ethereal element, 
and hope thus to smooth the wrinkled brow of naval discon¬ 
tent. The hope, I fear, is vain. For the sake of the argu¬ 
ment, I will admit that the proposed readjustment is all right, 
as perfect as perfect can be. I am not now criticising the just¬ 
ness of this distribution of honor, but the folly of any distri¬ 
bution at all. But I suppose the equity of the distribution is 
not above criticism, because the committee was as equally 
divided upon it as a committee with odd numbers ever can be. 
Five out of the eleven condemned it. 

Second, the bill proposes to change the character of these 
honorary degrees from relative to positive rank. What is the 
difference? I have frequently asked this question of those 


232 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


who urge the change, but no satisfactory answer is ever given. 
“Does it impose additional duties,” I have inquired. The 
answer is, “ No, sir.” “ Does it confer any additional privi¬ 
leges?” “No, sir.” Why, then, make the change? Be¬ 
cause they tell us “ the relative rank does not secure us the 
attention inside or outside the navy we expected and deserved. 
People say ‘ we are not real captains after all, only relative/ 
or ‘ we are only engineer captains, or paymaster captains, or 
doctor captains/ ” Quite likely people say so because it is so. 
People seek the real captain of the ship because he commands 
it. You cannot secure this attention to the doctor or pay¬ 
master on the ship unless you clothe him with the same 
power. 

Mr. Speaker, mark first what the law is now and then what 
the complaint of it is. The law now says that a doctor, en¬ 
gineer, and paymaster having certain corps rank shall be as 
much esteemed on the ship as the captain; that is, their corps 
rank shall be deemed as high, relatively, as the corps rank of 
the captain ; or, to use the language of the law, shall rank 
with the captain. What is the complaint ? Why, that they 
do not find themselves of as much consequence, do not receive 
as much attention, are not as much sought as the captain. 
The law is explicit enough, but nobody seems to agree with 
it. Nobody runs after the doctor unless he is sick ; nobody 
after the paymaster unless he has a bill; but everybody runs 
after the captain. Why is it? Because the duties and powers 
of the captain connect him with every interest and every per¬ 
son on board ship; everybody runs to him; everybody is 
respectful to him, because everybody has business with him, 
and he has power over everybody, and not because he is held 
abstractly in any higher esteem than others. I suppose, Mr. 
Speaker, you were entitled to just as much esteem in the last 
Congress as in this, and still you are now the object of much 
more attention than you were then. Why ? Simply because 


SPEECHES. 


233 


your present position gives you much more knowledge of the 
business of the House and much more control over it than you 
had then. Were the most unpopular member of the House to 
take your place we would be compelled to seek him as we 
do you, and very likely would exhibit more respect than we 
really felt. If these gentlemen do not receive attention in 
proportion to their relative rank, what is the remedy ? There 
is but one remedy that amounts to anything, and that is to 
enlarge their powers and duties. The framers or advisers 
of this bill have been wise enough to see that and to provide 
for it, but quite too modest to acknowledge their wisdom. 
Therefore, when you inquire in what respect positive rank is 
better than relative, you get no answer that conveys a clear 
idea. 

Let us, then, look to the bill itself. By distinct enactment it 
places staff officers in the ranks of line officers. That imposes 
upon them all the duties and confers all the powers and privi¬ 
leges that belong to the rank, except so far as the same bill 
imposes limitations. It first invests these officers with all the 
powers and duties of the line, and then recalls some of them 
by exceptions and limitations. To learn, then, what is con¬ 
ferred we must first see what is withheld. All else is con¬ 
ferred. Nobody, I think, will deny that this is the proper 
construction. The bill itself acknowledges it by going on to 
make the limitations and by abrogating all existing laws that 
might conflict with it. What, then, are the limitations or ex¬ 
ceptions ? Three in all. They cannot, by virtue of this rank, 
exercise command or authority in the line of the navy, nor 
claim additional quarters nor additional pay. What is left ? 
It may be hard to tell exactly what is left; but certainly three 
important things: uniform, title, and exemption from all 
obedience to the commanding officer, unless such officer hap¬ 
pens to be senior in rank. The ninth section expressly says 
that his authority in his own corps (and he has no duties 

16 


234 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


anywhere else) shall be commensurate with his honorary 
rank. 

Now, sir, put a paymaster, a surgeon, an engineer, a chap¬ 
lain, and a professor of mathematics, all with the rank of 
captain, on board a third-class ship, in charge of a com¬ 
mander, or on a second-class ship in charge of a captain junior 
by a few days to the other captains. You have then six cap¬ 
tains on board, each with a captain’s dress and a captain’s 
title, but neither of them having any authority over the 
others except to keep them out of his bailiwick. The captain 
of the ship cannot give an order to the captain in the engine- 
room, because the engineer is his senior in rank ; and by this 
bill each officer has power in his own corps according to hon¬ 
orary rank. He cannot order the sick-bay to be put in order 
for battle, because an outranking doctor captain commands 
there. He cannot order his captain-paymaster to purchase 
supplies, nor his captain-chaplain to bury the dead, for the 
same reason. Again, sir, the identity of uniform and title is 
not as insignificant as might at first appear. The uniform is 
given that everybody may readily know who is authorized to 
do certain business or assume certain authority, and the title 
only names or indicates certain duties. Giving the same title 
and the same dress to officers who perform duties entirely un¬ 
like of course destroys the whole purpose of it. Both become 
a mere matter of ornament and pride, and not a useful desig¬ 
nation. In order to operate a ship the six captains must 
meet in convention, and resolve what shall be done. Con¬ 
fusion, strife, distracted councils, and, finally, the prostration 
of all naval discipline, is sure to follow. 

This is all I wish to say about the general purpose of the 
bill. Now a word or two about its details. A few minutes 
ago I admitted, for the sake of the argument, that the pro¬ 
posed distribution of honor was equitable and just; but, with 
all deference to the profound learning of the committee in 


SPEECHES . 


235 


this regard, I still have my fears that it is not so. Take a 
single example : the bill fixes the rank of clerks for the 
higher grades of officers. Who are these clerks? Young 
men, inexperienced in all the affairs of life, particularly of 
naval life. They are usually the relatives or dependents of 
the officers who select them. Their business is to write the 
letters of the admirals and commodores. These clerks are 
clothed in this bill with the uniform and high-sounding titles 
of captains and commanders. It says that the honor of 
writing letters for an admiral is equal to all the glory that an 
old captain has gained by thirty years of hardship, depriva¬ 
tions, experience, and hazard of health and life in carrying 
your flag to the ends of the earth, or bravely defending it in 
battle. Take another example : all officers whose duty in any 
degree partakes of manual labor are carefully excluded from 
these ranks of honor. Honor stops abashed when it comes 
to ungloved hands. All the warrant officers, the master-me¬ 
chanics, and quartermasters are omitted. These classes em¬ 
brace great moral and intellectual worth. Take as a sample 
the ship-carpenter. His trade is almost equal to a profession. 
Its acquisition requires many years of preparation, study, and 
practice. Very often, in times of great disaster, he is the 
most important man on the ship. When the keel is rent, 
the mast and rudder carried away by the storm, his skill, his 
experience, and his genius often save the ship. He mends 
the broken hull, invents a rudder, and contrives a spar. 
Besides, he is also a gentleman. Who ever saw a vulgar 
carpenter? Low habits are always the offspring of idleness. 
A laboring man is always a gentleman. If we must have 
these grades of honor, why should these cultivated and gentle¬ 
manly mechanics be entirely ignored ? “ Perhaps they were 

overlooked !” No, sir; a committee of these mechanics ap¬ 
peared before us to urge their claims. Doctors, engineers, 
paymasters, chaplains, professors, captains,—everybody from 


236 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


every corps,—came to see us about this question, and I can 
say with truth no class exhibited greater moral and intellectual 
worth, so far as appearances go, than the representatives of 
the mechanics. But their hands were hard, and they were 
rejected. These are only specimen errors in the distribution. 
I do not wish to follow them further, because I do not wish 
my argument against the main purpose of the bill, to wit, 
'the creation of ranks of honor, should be confounded with a 
criticism upon its details. 

In defence of this bill it is said that line officers have secured 
for themselves these honorary ranks, and this is only an en¬ 
largement of them so as to include the staff. I deny it. It is 
not true that line officers have honorary titles or ranks, nor, 
so far as I know, do they ask for any. Their duties are 
classified and called, as I have explained already, by appro¬ 
priate names, which names become the titles of the officers 
who perform the duties. But these are titles or names of 
duties in their corps, not of honors. Every other corps has a 
similar classification of duties, with titles equally appropriate; 
nor do line officers, so far as I know, object to the bestowal of 
honorary titles upon officers of other corps. They are, how¬ 
ever, opposed to taking titles which indicate duty in one corps 
as the titles of honor for other corps. They are opposed to 
giving an engineer the honorary title of surgeon, or a surgeon 
the honorary title of commander, or a commander the honorary 
title of chaplain. They say, with great propriety, that if all 
naval officers are to be graded according to honor, it should be 
done by a new classification and an independent set of titles. 
I suppose a numerical classification would answer the pur¬ 
pose. The officers deemed the most honorable could be of the 
first class, those next in honor of the second class, and so on. 
Or if this seems too commonplace the titles of English nobility 
are at your service. You could enact that a captain, a medical 
director, a pay director, a chief engineer, shall have the rank of 


SPEECHES. 


237 


marquis; that a commander, a medical inspector, a pay in¬ 
spector, and an engineer shall have the rank of earl; and so 
on. This would have two advantages over the titles proposed 
in this bill. First, it would avoid the confusion occasioned 
by using the same titles to indicate duties to one corps and 
honors to another. Second, the officers of the army could be 
graded into it also; and when we have progressed a little 
further in this direction the importance of all civil officers 
could be weighed in the same scales. We would thus have 
one standard and system for the measurement and distribution 
of glory all around the republic. 

It is further said that in the army the doctors and pay¬ 
masters have this honorary rank. That is so. The officer 
at the head of the medical department of the army is called 
the surgeon-general to indicate his duties, and a brigadier- 
general to iudicate his relative importance. The duties of 
these two officers are entirely unlike. The one superintends 
the medical department, the other commands a brigade. The 
surgeon knows nothing about the brigade, and the brigadier 
nothing about surgery. So far as the one takes the title or 
uniform of the other, it is a misnomer and a disguise. Sur¬ 
geon-general is a very honorable title. We associate with it 
not only general culture and refinement, but great learning 
and experience in a profession whose business it is to assuage 
human pain and lengthen human life. Suppose a brigadier- 
general, desirous of associating with his fame the learning and 
refinement of the surgeon, should ask you to make him a 
surgeon-general by honor, you would laugh at him. And is 
it less ridiculous for the surgeon-general to ask to be made a 
brigadier by honor ? The precedent of honorary rank in the 
army should be reformed rather than followed. 

I fall behind no one in my appreciation of the professional 
attainments and responsible duties of the naval officers who 
are improperly grouped together under the name of “ staff 


238 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


officers.” If they are not now properly cared for I will do 
what I can to improve their condition. If their pay is too 
small let us raise it. If their quarters on board ship are un¬ 
comfortable let us improve them. If they need a boat and 
detail of oarsmen let us provide it. Let them make known 
their real wants, and let us provide for them. This bill sells 
out every substantial good. It abandons pay, authority, and 
quarters for an unconstitutional and anti-republican gewgaw. 


SPEECHES. 


239 


SPEECH 

ON TIIE AMNESTY BILL. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , January 28, 1871. 


The Speaker. —The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
May ham] is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. May t ham. —I will yield for a few minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Scofield]. 

Mr. Scofield.— Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to authorize 
certain leaders of the late rebellion to hold office. All the 
other leaders and all the rank and file have that privilege 
already. A small number, understood to be the contrivers of 
as well as actors in the revolt, are excluded by the fourteenth 
amendment from places of trust. The exclusion covers only 
those who were guilty not only of the crime of treason but of 
that meaner crime,—false swearing and betrayal. They are 
not, however, by virtue of any Federal law, excluded from 
the franchise. The national government does not withhold 
the ballot from a single rebel, high or low. It permits them 
all to vote. In other countries such leaders would have been 
beheaded. Our fathers banished the Tories and forfeited their 
estates. We all believe this rebellion was causeless; we all 
know how many precious lives it cost us; we all know how 
much treasure it consumed; we all know how many hearts 
ache to-day by its bereavements; yet the government has not 
avenged itself with the life of a single criminal. None are 




240 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


banished, none are under bonds. All can vote, nearly all can 
hold office; a few cannot; a very few compared to the whole 
number. As near as I can make out it is about one in one 
hundred of those who participated in the war against the 
government. 

The impression has gone out that some penalties are im¬ 
posed, that some of these offenders are still in danger of death 
or imprisonment or loss of property, at least that some are 
not allowed to vote, and that none can hold office. All this 
is error. Neither the Constitution nor laws of the United 
States impose any penalties, disabilities, or restrictions of any 
kind whatever upon the authors of our great national sorrows 
except to exclude a few of the worst from office. This bill 
proposes to remove that slight restriction. It proposes to put 
those who attempted to destroy the country upon an equal 
footing in all respects with those who risked their lives to save 
it. It proposes to put patriotism and treason on a common 
level; to make patriots and traitors equal before the law. 
The public judgment may make a difference, but the law is to 
furnish no censure for the one and no approval for the other. 
I am not now speaking against the proposed amnesty. I am 
only describing it. I do not want the House to forget, nor 
the country to forget, that all the actors in the rebellion already 
have all the privileges of the republic, except that a few leaders 
canuot hold office, and that this bill does away with that re¬ 
striction. I do not think the advocates of amnesty, in Con¬ 
gress or out of it, have been very particular to let the people 
know how little there is left upon which it can act. They 
have not been particular to tell the people that its whole and 
only purpose is to enable the leaders to hold office. They are 
not particular now to tell them that this bill is an invitation 
to these leaders to come back to Congress and to the control 
of States. 

Now, before we remove this restriction, before we give this 


SPEECHES. 


241 


invitation, we ought to consider its original purpose. What 
was that purpose ? Not punishment certainly. No new pro¬ 
vision was necessary for that. By pre-existing law, not only 
these leaders but all their followers were exposed to the gal¬ 
lows or, by commutation, to imprisonment, banishment, and 
forfeiture. The purpose of the exclusion was safety, nothing 
else. We forgave the crime at once, and legislated only for 
the future safety of the republic. There was a time in our 
history, not very remote, when the words “ indemnity for the 
past and security for the future” controlled the action of the 
then dominant party. We exacted from the Confederates no 
indemnity for the past, but made this slight restriction as 
security for the future. Security against what? it is asked. 
Do you fear a second rebellion ? No, sir, I do not. Security 
against legislation in the interest of the Confederacy and 
against the republic. The Confederacy had four years of 
nationality. Great interests and powerful passions grew up in 
the mean while. Their currency, their bonds, their obligations 
to maimed soldiery, orphanage, widowhood, their military 
history and personal fame, and their vast claims for damages, 
were'all antagonistical to the corresponding interests of the 
United States. Had these leaders come immediately back to 
Congress and assumed control of the Confederate States, the 
question would have been whether their debts or ours should 
be paid, whether their soldiers or ours should have pensions, 
whether their currency or ours should pay debts, whether their 
generals or ours should be honored, whether the colored people 
should be citizens or slaves. The result would have been a 
division of these interests and a compromise of principle. The 
future historian would have been puzzled to know which were 
the victors in the long struggle. To secure the republic against 
such a result this restriction was adopted. 

What reasons are assigned for its abrogation? I have 
listened to most of the debate, and hunted through all the 


242 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


rhetoric of the globe for an answer. Only two reasons are 
given in all this eloquent talk. First, it irritates the rebel 
leaders; and, second, Congress is peddling out this relief by 
the small. A word as to the first reason. Admitting that it 
is a cruel thing to irritate these great offenders, I ask for the 
evidence that they are irritated. They have not so informed 
Congress; they have asked for no relief; or if any of them 
have, the prayer has been promptly granted. If they are 
irritated let them inform us, and not leave it for their friends 
here to get at it by a process of reasoning. I think their 
friends here are more interested in their behalf than they are 
for themselves. At all events we have no evidence beyond 
the assertion of members that the rebel chiefs are irritated. 
It will be time enough to soothe them when that fact is 
authoritatively made known. 

But to the second reason, the charge of peddling. From 
time to time Congress has removed the restriction as to cer¬ 
tain persons. This is discrimination, a wise discrimination, 
I think. But the advocates of universal amnesty call it 
“ peddlingand having given it a belittling name, continu¬ 
ally repeat it as an argument. When a governor pardons an 
offender for exceptional reasons nobody calls it peddling out 
clemency, and nobody scolds because he does not pardon every¬ 
body at once. We have already in this way removed the 
restriction from several thousand persons. Not a single per¬ 
son who has asked it has been denied. These two reasons are 
too insignificant for serious consideration; and yet it is all the 
argument given us. 

Mr. Speaker, I was one with you and others still left in 
Congress who helped to erect this barrier against the domina¬ 
tion of Confederate interests in the Southern States and at this 
capitol. I am not yet prepared to tear it down. France laid 
the foundation of another revolution when she recalled her 
Bourbon rulers. I am not yet prepared to follow this unwise 




SPEECHES. 


243 


example. Gentlemen talk of conciliation, forgiveness, mag¬ 
nanimity, clemency ! Sir, we have exhausted all these senti¬ 
ments in our treatment of the country’s enemies. Weakness, 
folly, cowardice, self-destruction, are more fitting words for 
the action proposed. 


244 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


SPEECH 

ON THE BILL TO AMEND THE SEVERAL ACTS PROVIDING A 
NATIONAL CURRENCY, AND TO ESTABLISH FREE BANKING. 


Delivered in the House of Representatives , May 19, 1874. 


Mr. Speaker, —In order to provide a proper remedy, if 
remedy is possible, for the business depression of the country, 
we should first endeavor to ascertain its cause. If we cannot 
agree as to what the cause is, we possibly may as to what it is 
not. 

It certainly is not because of any scarcity. We have about 
as much food and clothing in the country in proportion to 
population as we ever had. We not only have more dwelling- 
houses, but more furniture and comforts in them than ever 
before. We have more and grander public edifices and busi¬ 
ness houses, more schools, school-buildings, churches, and 
libraries, than ever before. Not only so, but within a few 
years the whole country has been very much developed by the 
opening of rivers and harbors, building of railroads, tunnels, 
bridges, and highways, and by the construction of every kind 
of city and village improvement, whereby the whole country 
is rendered more habitable and all our material wants better 
supplied than ever before. As Republicans we have been 
accustomed to boast, and with great truth, that the country 
was never so progressive, nor the people better clothed, fed, 
housed, and warmed than under the administration of General 
Grant. 




SPEECHES. 


245 


But in the midst of all this prosperity and progress a great 
many manufactories that had been running night and day to 
supply this large demand for consumption have suspended, 
and their laborers, clerks, and superintendents are left without 
employment. Why have they suspended ? Have they been 
running at a loss? Oh, no. On the contrary, they have been 
making very large profits. The owners, as a general thing, 
are very rich, as they well deserve to be for their skill and 
enterprise. Why, then, do they not go on with business? 
Because consumption has suddenly fallen off. They cannot 
sell even their present stock. If they could sell their stock 
now on hand, and see a reasonable market for the future, they 
would revive at once. They need somebody to buy their pro¬ 
ductions. In other words, they want consumers. For the 
last five years there has been no such lack. All the old estab¬ 
lishments and many new ones have been in full operation, and 
even then could scarcely keep up with the demand for all this 
construction, comfort, and luxury into which their products 
were turned. But this year consumption has fallen off very 
largely and very suddenly, especially of iron, lumber, and all 
articles of luxury. 

Why is this? Why do not the people buy as heretofore? 
Where have the consumers disappeared ? They have not been 
swept away by pestilence or war. Our population has not 
decreased. They have the same property, though not always 
of the same nominal value nor always in the same man’s 
hands, but they have the same houses, lands, and chattels 
which they had last year; but somehow or other they have no 
stomach for consumption. If Congress could only give them 
an appetite, induce them to buy the coal, iron, lumber, oil, 
carriages, furniture, and the various luxurious fabrics now 
ever seeking a market, all these workshops would again be 
busy. Why, then, do they not buy? Why do they not 
consume ? 


246 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


“ Because/’ we are told, “ they have no currency with which 
to make the trade.” “ There is not currency enough in the 
country to do the business.” The manufacturers are on hand, 
as we know, with their products to sell, and the former con¬ 
sumers are on hand, and as it is alleged with capital to buy; 
but the trade cannot be made because, it is said, there is no 
currency, no bills, no medium by which the transfer can be 
effected. The suggestion that the consumers, that is the people, 
do not want to buy ; that many of them have no capital with 
which to buy; and that all have come to the conclusion that 
they cannot afford to buy, is set aside as too absurd for con¬ 
sideration. There is nothing in the way, they insist, but a 
lack of currency. Now, if that is so, how did they manage 
to do so much business for the last five years? During that 
time the volume of currency has not materially changed. The 
three-per-cent, certificates were redeemed, but the fifty-odd 
millions of bank-notes much more than supplied their place. 
Besides, we have added within a year twenty-six millions of 
greenbacks to the circulation. So that on the whole the cur¬ 
rency has been considerably enlarged. We now have in all 
seven hundred and eighty-two million dollars, about four times 
the amount of paper currency before the war. This currency 
has not only been sufficient during all these five years to do 
the business of the country well, but by its redundancy to aid 
the vast inflation of commercial credit. Now, where has all 
this currency gone ? It must be conceded on all hands that 
it was abundant for the large business we have been doing, 
and certainly, if we can find it and use it, it will be super¬ 
abundant for the small business we are doing now. It is 
not in the Treasury. These.vaults are uncommonly empty. 
Where is it? 

Gentlemen see the necessity of answering this question. 
They cannot deny that we have had enough to do the business 
heretofore, and that we have a little more now than we had 


SPEECHES. 


247 


then. They see that these two facts, these two admissions, 
refute their allegation that trade has been suspended from lack 
of currency, unless they can show that it is destroyed or placed 
beyond our reach. Driven to this extremity, they gravely 
tell us that the freedmen have absorbed it! absorbed seven 
hundred and eighty-two millions, or a good part of it. But 
while we are wondering at the amazing thrift of these poor 
people and their extraordinary power of sudden absorption, 
Representatives of the South arise and demonstrate that there 
is very little currency in that section of the country, either 
among the whites or blacks. They complain that the North 
and East have monopolized it all, and demand legislation 
whereby they can secure their share. 

Then, again, it is said that the currency has been hid away 
in old stockings all over the country. Seven hundred and 
eighty-two millions or a good part thereof—four times more 
than belonged to the whole country before the war—hid away 
in stockings ! But this theory is scarcely advanced before up 
rise a dozen gentlemen on the same side of the main question, 
and attempt to demonstrate that this class of alleged hoarders 
are very poor, out of employment, out of money, and out of 
stockings, and give this as an argument in favor of printing 
more money. 

Then it is said that it has all gone to Wall Street. Money 
goes to New York, to be sure, and so do men, and both on 
the same errand. Men go to transact business there and return 
to transact business at home. Money goes and returns for the 
same purpose. It has respect to trade only and not to places. 
Leave it free, and no place can long retain more than the 
amount which its relative business requires. 

Finally, when the freedmen, stocking-hoarding, and Wall 
Street stories are exploded, it is alleged that the currency is 
hoarded by banks and other money-lenders. What a contra¬ 
diction of assertions ! Hoarders never lend, and lenders can- 


248 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


not afford to hoard. That much of the currency lies in the 
vaults of banks and other money centres is doubtless true, but 
that it is hoarded there is absurd. To lend money is the 
business of a bank, and if it does not do it no dividends are 
earned. The money is in the banks because there is little for 
it to do outside. It is the sure evidence of plethora. There 
is but little trading going on. Producers want to sell, but 
consumers will not buy, and, there being but little demand for 
a medium of exchange, it finds its way to the banks and lies 
there idle. Hoarding by banks and money-lenders is about as 
absurd as the negro and stocking-hoarding stories. You might 
as well expect a man in the livery business would fill his stable 
with horses and carriages and refuse to hire them to responsi¬ 
ble people; or that an innkeeper would furnish and stock his 
house, supply it with clerks and attendants, and then close his 
doors to his guests. While it is plain that the producer is on 
hand with his unsold stock, and the consumers are on hand to 
buy if they had the disposition and capital, the currency that 
used to be employed to make the transfer is also on hand 
awaiting the revival of trade. 

When trade ceased, money became idle and was laid up in 
vaults. The idleness of the money did not cause the cessation 
of trade, but was the result of it. You might as well say that 
the workman who is idle because he has nothing to do is 
hoarded as to say that the currency which lies in vaults be¬ 
cause there is no business to employ it is hoarded. The fact 
is that the mill, the workman, and the currency are all stand¬ 
ing idle because there is nobody to buy and consume their 
products. We know where the mill is, where the workman 
is, and where the currency is. There is no hiding nor hoard¬ 
ing of either. They are all ready to go to work to perform 
their several duties in production so soon as reliable consumers 
will agree to purchase. 

But suppose the currency has all disappeared in some or all 


SPEECHES. 


249 


of these several ways; consider your remedy. You propose 
to print, say, one hundred millions more; would not that go 
where the seven hundred and eighty-two millions went ? How 
can you stop it? “ Keep on printing,” we are told. That is 
pouring water in a sieve. 

Again, it is asserted by those who think this falling off in 
consumption is caused by a deficiency in the currency that a 
certain amount of currency per head is at all times required to 
do the business of the country, and that we have not at this 
time that “ certain amount.” If this “ per- head” tfieory were 
true, it would not help the argument; for whether we have 
more or less than that certain amount, we now have as much 
as we had during the period of the greatest consumption, so 
that the falling off in consumption could not be attributed to 
a deficiency of currency. Gentlemen who believe this theory 
have been trying to ascertain what that requisite certain amount 
is. Some fix it at fifteen dollars per head, some at twenty, 
and others at twenty-five. One gentleman, drawing a fine 
sight upon it, demonstrated that we needed exactly nineteen 
dollars thirty-nine cents and four and one-fourth mills for 
every man, woman, and child within our borders. If Con¬ 
gress would print just that amount, buying and consuming, he 
thought, would again revive. No wonder that no two of these 
specific-amount theorists can agree. Their error lies in the 
supposition that there is or can be any such specific amount. 
Its advocates forget that, other things being equal, prices rise 
as the quality of the currency is depreciated by its enlarged 
quantity. So that as soon as business becomes settled upon 
the new basis the increased amount of currency will go no 
further in trade than did the smaller amount on the old scale 
of prices. If we would convert, by law, every one-dollar 
note, as has been proposed, into five dollars, and raise all other 
denominations in the same proportion, as soon as existing 
contracts were satisfied and prices adjusted to the change, your 

17 


250 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


new five would buy no more than it did when it was called 
one, and of course could do no more business. It cannot be 
true, then, that a specific amount is required. The business 
could be done equally well by a large or small amount. The 
suffering comes from a change in either direction. By chang¬ 
ing the volume of the currency you change prices, and by 
changing prices you change the wealth of individuals. One 
class gains and another loses. The losers are the dull, earn¬ 
ing, and saving class; the gainers, the sharp, speculative, 
money-making class, who alone anticipate the coming change, 
and bargain, buy, and sell accordingly. 

But if further evidence is required to prove that the di¬ 
minished consumption is not caused by insufficient currency, 
let* the doubter compare the present amount of paper money 
with the amount existing before the war. Prior to that time 
the average amount of paper money was less than two hun¬ 
dred millions, and it ran but a little above these figures even 
during the great inflation of 1857. Now, it is seven hundred 
and eighty-two millions. Besides this, the entire business of 
three or four States is done with coin, or bank-notes redeem¬ 
able in coin. The interest due from the United States, from 
many of the several States, and from divers railroads and 
other corporations, is paid with coin. The customs are col¬ 
lected in coin, and a large portion of private exchanges effected 
through the same medium. We have about four times as 
much paper money now as we had then; besides the vast in¬ 
crease of national, State, and corporate indebtedness which is 
more or less used for large transactions. After making all 
possible allowance for increased business, you still have sur¬ 
plus currency enough to more than double prices. I con¬ 
clude, therefore, that the motive which induced people to stop 
buying, all at once, did not originate in the currency, and we 
must look for it elsewhere. 

Again, it is said that the market was glutted by overpro- 


SPEECHES. 


251 


duction. That is hardly a correct statement of the case. Di¬ 
minished consumption rather than increased production glutted 
the market and stopped the mills. For many years the pro¬ 
duction has been very large, but consumption has been equal 
to it. In fact, the large demand coaxed the mills into opera¬ 
tion, and when that demand suddenly fell off a portion of the 
workshops were compelled to stop, or run at a heavy loss. 

We come back to the unanswered question, Why did con¬ 
sumption fall off so suddenly ? Because a large part of all this 
buying, constructing, building, and furnishing had been done 
upon credit, and some of the great bankers, numerous country 
investors, merchants, and manufacturers, who had been fur¬ 
nishing the credit, broke down, or became unable or unwilling 
to advance any more. Loauable capital was exhausted, but 
the currency was not diminished. When credit gave out, 
economy came in, and the buying, constructing, building, and 
furnishing were at once suspended. 

A little review of what has been passing around us will 
show how credit came to be sought, how obtained, and how 
exhausted. During all these years of prosperity a great many 
people had been living beyond their means. Contrast the style 
of living before and since the war, and you find careful earning 
and frugality on the one side, and extravagance and prodi¬ 
gality on the other. It is said that our resources kept pace 
with expenditure, and that our increased consumption no more 
than equalled our increased wealth. I know we thought so, 
and it was that belief that begat the extravagance which in 
turn begat the present trouble. Each person knew that he 
was not laboring any harder, nor laying by in purchasing 
power any more surplus, and that his items of property were 
about the same, and still he imagined that he was worth and 
could afford to spend a great deal more. The bulk of his 
estate was the same, the articles that composed it the same, the 
income from it the same in purchasing power, but in the 


252 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


inventory the figures were gloriously enlarged. With such an 
unexpected addition to his wealth, why should he not borrow 
a little money with which to enlarge his house, renew his fur¬ 
niture, and spend a few months abroad or at the springs ? He 
thought, as many gentlemen here argue, that a dollar was a 
dollar, whether made of gold, leather, or paper, or whether it 
would buy a day’s boarding or be all used up on a single 
breakfast. The owner of a small house worth a couple of 
thousand dollars found in the course of a few years that its 
nominal value had run up to five or six thousand dollars, and 
very naturally concluded that, by a shrewd investment, he 
had tripled his estate. In this delusion he enlarged his ex¬ 
penses to correspond. His money-lending neighbor took the 
same view of it, and loaned him money on the inflated prices. 
And in this way delusion was discounted, drawn upon, and 
mortgaged all over the land. We went on borrowing, buying, 
and consuming so rapidly that production could hardly keep 
up with the demand. 

In the same way cities and villages, believing that their 
wealth had quadrupled and, in spite of the very accurate 
census which nobody would credit, that their population had 
doubled, and discounting corresponding growth for the future, 
borrowed money and entered upon improvements, very con¬ 
venient and useful in themselves, but far in advance of the 
real ability of the people. The same misconception of the 
growth and wants of commerce induced railroad men to believe, 
or enabled them to make other people believe, that large 
travel could be had where nobody lived and heavy freights 
where nothing was grown. Hundreds of these premature 
and at present non-paying enterprises were undertaken, and 
their construction furnished a market for labor, coal, iron, 
lumber, locomotives, cars, machinery, and tools of every kind. 
But all these improvements were made very largely upon 
credit. Municipal and railroad bonds floated like golden 


SPEECHES. 


253 


clouds all over the country, and the small surplus of every 
neighborhood as well as the small savings of the people in the 
banks were absorbed in these uncertain securities. So that 
while we really possessed all the improvements, comforts, and 
luxuries of which we had been accustomed to boast, they had 
yet in good part to be paid for from future earnings and 
savings. 

We came to a realization of this ugly fact very suddenly. 
And we came to notice another ugly fact quite as suddenly, 
and that was that our property had not increased in value 
near as much as we had supposed, and that the apparent in¬ 
crease was largely owing to a depreciation in the standard of 
measurement. Unconsciously by that standard everything 
had been watered, inflated, or duplicated. The failure of a 
single firm opened our eyes, and we saw the mistake in our 
estimates, our expenditures, and our investments as plainly as 
if a streak of lightning had scrolled “Delusion” on the sky. 
Of course, we stopped constructing, building, buying, and 
furnishing at once. And now very few people are willing to 
buy, while a great many people are anxious to sell. 

Congress is expected to persuade somebody to buy what 
somebody else offers for sale. That “ revives trade;” that 
“ starts business ;” that “ relieves the country.” “ Give us 
buyers,” is the prayer of the manufacturers, producers, and 
venders, burdened with last year’s stock or last speculation. 
I earnestly wish we could answer that prayer by furnishing 
purchasers for the surplus productions of those deserving 
manufacturers. Then they could manufacture more and thus 
give employment to the laboring people. But consumers say 
they have already bought too much, more than they could 
well afford to do; that they are somewhat in debt for what 
they have already consumed, and therefore they must econo¬ 
mize and buy less until they catch up. The thoughtful man¬ 
ufacturer sees the situation and the helplessness of Congress in 


254 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


the premises and reduces his production, slowly and cautiously, 
to protect as far as possible his employes. I trust they may 
not have long to wait. Consumption by the economy and 
growth of the country will soon come up to its former demand, 
and then manufacturing will be as lively as ever. 

But there is another clase of venders less reasonable and 
less deserving. They are speculators who have been caught 
with corner lots, city additions, land-grabs, timber monopolies, 
coal lands without coal, oil lands without oil, gold mines with¬ 
out gold, with railroad charters and paper towns, and with 
bonds and stocks in everything uncreated. They will tell you 
that if confidence had only held up for a day or a week or a 
month longer, they would have had their cash in hand, and 
then a great many confiding and honest people would have 
been caught in the crash instead of themselves. As it is, they 
have left many victims all over the land. These gentlemen, 
with an audacity that characterizes their calling, assume to be 
the people, and in their name keep up a steady “ ding-dong” 
for the “ restoration of confidence,” and confidence they allege 
can only be restored by watering the currency. 

Free banking, with a proper retirement of discredited paper, 
is in the line of correct financial principles and ought to be 
agreed to; but “ expansion” pure and simple will impair 
rather than restore confidence in the honor of the government 
and the stability of prices. It is at best a temporary remedy 
that must be yearly renewed and enlarged until we shall be 
overtaken with repudiation and national disgrace, to be fol¬ 
lowed possibly by revolution or disunion. 

What do they mean by “ restoring confidence” ? Con¬ 
fidence in what? Confidence that a man has enlarged his 
wealth because it is valued by a lower standard, and that 
therefore he can afford to borrow, expend, and live extrava¬ 
gantly ? Confidence that watered stocks and premature im¬ 
provements are good investments for the hard earnings of the 


SPEECHES. 


255 


people, or a good bank collateral for a sixty-day note? Con¬ 
fidence that the wealth and population of your town is double 
what the census made it, and that it will again double in two 
or three years, and therefore you can afford to issue bonds, 
project extensive improvements, and convert farms into city 
additions ? 

This would rather be the restoration of the credulity, the 
delusion which is the cause of all our trouble. Who would 
be benefited by such a revival ? It might enable one class of 
citizens to work off their unsuccessful enterprises, their un¬ 
salable property and bad speculations upon their neighbors, 
but those neighbors would be less able to bear the misfortune 
than those upon whom it originally fell. But you cannot re¬ 
vive “ confidence’’ suddenly, even by order of Congress. You 
may shorten the measure so as to duplicate distance, but the 
deception in this day of inquiry will be suspected. Tell a 
prudent man, accustomed to keep a little surplus for emer¬ 
gencies, a pond into which the small accretions of his industry 
flows, and seeing that surplus half drawn off by the extrava¬ 
gance of the times, shuts down the waste-gate—tell him to 
open that gate again and go on expending, that Congress will 
fill the pond by providing that six inches shall make a foot, 
would he believe you? Would he act upon your advice? 
The speculator below the gate, hoping to acquire the prudent 
man’s earnings, might listen to you, but the man above would 
suspect you for a rogue. Grown people no more than children 
play with fire while the old burn is smarting. I suppose 
this delusion, miscalled confidence, will come slowly back of 
itself. It takes time, but it will come. It is periodic like 
locusts, and epidemic like fanaticisms. In a few years we 
will again fall under the influence of expanded credit. We 
will again imagine we are getting rich without additions to 
our property, and again begin to borrow, expend, and specu¬ 
late, and call it making money. But for the present the 


256 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


people will be distrustful, cautious, and frugal, let Congress do 
what they will. 

We ought to learn something of our duty, in this emergency, 
from past experience. Our condition is not unprecedented. 
The history of business in this country and the old is full of 
similar break-downs. They were always preceded by delusive 
estimates of wealth, and corresponding extravagance both in 
private and public affairs; which delusion was caused by a 
wild expansion of commercial credit, aided in the beginning 
by a redundant paper currency. The collapse was always 
attributed to fright and panic, while in fact it was only a sud¬ 
den comprehension of each one’s own and his neighbor’s con¬ 
dition. To restore confidence by legislation—that is, to blind 
the people to their real situation, lest they should contract 
their purchases and thereby lessen trade and discourage pro¬ 
duction—has always been tried and always failed. Possibly 
we will try it again; but if so, it will again fail. Our ex¬ 
perience will be like the past; we will have a year or two of 
reduced consumption, of caution, retrenchment, settlement, 
and dull times. It will be shorter and lighter than in other 
countries, because we grow more rapidly; shorter and lighter 
than in 1837, because the expansion of commercial credit and 
overestimate is less; and shorter and lighter than in 1857, 

• because we have a much safer although an expanded and 
depreciated currency. 


ADDRESS. 


257 


ADDRESS 

Delivered on the occasion of laying the corner-stone of the State Hospital 
for the Insane at Warren } Pennsylvania , September 10, 1874. 

After a short address by Governor Hartranfl, Mr. Scofield 
was introduced, and said : 

Our work to-day marks a period, a step, in the slow progress 
of our race. I do not mean that the architecture of the noble 
edifice whose corner-stone has just been placed by our excel¬ 
lent chief magistrate will indicate such progress. On the con¬ 
trary, that will be little more than a copy of the old-time 
original. In that line we have not improved upon the types 
of long centuries ago. Nor will such indication be found in 
the carvings, sculpture, and paintings that may adorn its 
portals and walls ; for in these arts we do not surpass the an¬ 
cients. Nor does it indicate progress in mental or functional 
development. While much has been written upon that sub¬ 
ject, and many hopeful and flattering theories advanced, it has 
never been satisfactorily demonstrated that the human form or 
brain has improved either in size, structure, or quality during 
the period of which there is reliable history. On the contrary, 
it is generally conceded that the ancients were equal to the 
moderns in all physical and mental endowments,—in cour¬ 
age, logic, eloquence, poetry, fine arts, and everything that 
indicates intellectual strength and culture. 

But the progress is shown in the purpose to which the work 
is dedicated. The civilization of our day demands for the 
insane commodious hospitals, learned physicians, and gentle 


258 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


attendants, as against neglect, imprisonments, scourging, chains, 
and death of former ages. I do not suppose that the natural 
heart, unaffected by religion or education, beats more sympa¬ 
thetically for human suffering to-day than it did centuries 
ago; nor that the brain has undergone any functional change 
whereby we are less “ of the earth, earthy.” But we treat in¬ 
sanity with greater tenderness, because we have come to know 
more of its cause, and the possibility and means of cure. 
Herein consists our progress. We have become more humane, 
more civilized, because we have more knowledge. But we 
have a very imperfect knowledge of the malady even to-day. 
Theoretic natural truth develops very slowly. We have been 
able only to dispel some fatal errors into which former gen¬ 
erations fell, to arrange a few facts in support of new theories, 
and to discover and employ some new but only partially 
successful remedies. 

In the olden time the people supposed that evil spirits 
dwelt around them in the air, clouds, and earth, and that 
much of the phenomena of the heavens was due to their 
agency. It was supposed that these spirits had great power 
over the human race, and that many afflictions resulted from 
their devilish machinations. They had power, as was sup¬ 
posed, to take possession of men, turn out the natural mind, 
soul, or spirit, and convert the remaining human machine 
to their own malevolent purposes. Mental disorders were 
ascribed in part to these unknown powers, and the person thus 
afflicted, having become a witch, a demon, a dehumanized 
being, might properly be subjected to punishment. Again, it 
was supposed that insanity was caused by the moou, and that 
lucid intervals were produced by the moon’s changes. It was 
from this delusion that we derive the name by which insanity 
is designated to this day in the legislation of this country 
and Great Britain. Even those who took the most rational 
view of the case supposed the malady originated solely in the 


ADDRESS. 


259 


mind, abstracted and disconnected from the body. It was a 
kind of spiritual disease, and therefore, like the demon and 
moon theories, beyond the reach of medicine. “ Who,” they 
exclaimed, u can minister to a mind diseased ?” Even among 
the learned Egyptians the care of these afflicted people, so far 
as cared for at all, was handed over to the priests. With such 
erroneous conceptions of the origin of the trouble, we could 
not expect proper care and remedy. 

Every century has added something to our small stock of 
knowledge upon these subjects. Science has been able to 
throw here and there a gleam of light on the vast unknown 
within, around, and beyond us, and by slow degrees to correct 
our errors and nearly eradicate from human belief these ter¬ 
rible superstitions. The powers of the air, the strange phe¬ 
nomena of the heavens, and the thunders of the earth came at 
length to be explained on philosophical principles. It is found 
that there is no malevolence in the placid moon; no witches, 
no demons, no independent evil volition anywhere about us; 
nothing but the one great, unfathomable, beneficent Power to 
whose unchanging rules all things conform. 

Thou art, O God, the life and light 
Of all this wondrous world we see; 

Its glow by day, its light by night, 

Are but reflections caught from Thee. 

In the demonstration that insanity is not caused by such 
supernatural agencies we exhibit some progress. It was no 
easy work to dispel these terrible illusions, but something 
more has been accomplished. Considerable has been discov¬ 
ered as to the real causes of the malady. The anatomy of the 
human body, its wonderful mechanism and subtle chemistry, 
resulting in life, heat, and motion, in sensation, thought, 
memory, and affection, has been carefully studied, and the 
conclusion arrived at, although all students may not concur, 


260 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


that all mental aberrations, eccentricities, hallucinations, delu¬ 
sions, and ravings that are comprehended under the general 
name of insanity originate in the malformation or disease of 
some of the organs with which the mind is directly or indi¬ 
rectly connected. If so, it is, when fully understood, as much 
the subject of cure as other maladies. 

Our increased care of the insane, therefore, is the result, to 
a considerable extent, of our increased knowledge. For that 
increase in knowledge, it may be observed in passing, we are 
indebted to a small number of men, scientific men, closet 
students, who in their day and generation are rarely appre¬ 
ciated, often ridiculed, sometimes persecuted. They prepare 
the way by the discovery and revelation of natural truth, 
and civilization / with its order, charities, and comforts, 
slowly follows. 

Another means by which we have enlarged the knowledge 
out of which has grown this better humanity is the collection 
and analyzation of statistics. In this we necessarily have 
great advantage over the ancients. Not only have we had 
more centuries in which to make the recorded observations, 
but modern centuries have witnessed more extensive and accu¬ 
rate collections of facts than their predecessors. We have the 
light not only of their meagre collections, but also of the 
fuller records of succeeding generations. 

In this way we learn that insanity is a disease of high civ¬ 
ilization. It follows schools, markets, stock boards, enterprise, 
and government as steadily as it shuns barbarism, ignorance, 
and indolence. So intimately is it allied to education, com¬ 
merce, and free government that an expert could determine 
the degree of civilization in a nation by knowing the relative 
number of insane. Our own vast country presents an illus¬ 
tration, as well as evidence of this truth. In looking over 
the reports of our different States, we are at once struck with 
the fact that insanity appears to be least in those States where 


ADDRESS. 


261 


education, commerce, and kindred influences have been least, 
and most where they have been greatest. It is not pleasant to 
particularize on localities, but the same fact is shown in the 
progress of the whole country. According to the several 
census reports, we had in 1850 only one insane person to every 
fifteen hundred inhabitants; in 1860, one for every thirteen 
hundred, and in 1870 one for every thousand. Thus it ap¬ 
pears that the increase has been as steady as our progress. 
It may be some consolation to remember that in idiocy the 
rule is reversed. That infirmity diminishes as civilization in¬ 
creases, so that the balance of misfortune remains nearly the 
same. As we advance we have more madmen but fewer fools. 
There is another encouraging fact that should be stated here. 
While it is shown that insanity increases as the world ad¬ 
vances, it is also shown that the increase is not the necessary 
accompaniment of the advance. While it is doubtless true 
that much of this increase is owing to increased mental activity, 
modern investigation has been able to trace a large part of it 
to the unnecessary vices of civilization. I will not now name 
all of these vices. One may illustrate the whole. It is satis¬ 
factorily shown that intemperance, either in the ancestor or 
the victim, produces 'more insanity than any other cause. This 
is positively affirmed by Hon. J. C. G. Kennedy, one of the 
most learned statisticians in this country or any other country, 
in his report of the United States census of 1860. This cer¬ 
tainly is one of the unnecessary vices of civilization. There 
are some reformers, theorists, dreamers possibly they may be, 
who preach that by our steadily increasing knowledge we are 
advancing slowly into a higher civilization from which the 
vices of our present medial state will disappear like the errors 
and superstitions of former generations. Again, alleviation is 
found in the fact that the per centum of cures under modern 
treatment has largely increased and is still increasing. Three- 
fourths of all who submit to hospital treatment immediately 


262 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


after attack recover, and about forty per cent, of all who enter 
the hospitals at any time are discharged cared. I have not 
the per centum of cures under Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman 
treatment, but after the light of Mediterranean civilization 
went out the poor maniac was treated as an outcast or a crimi¬ 
nal until within the last few centuries. I do not state these 
facts for the information of the learned gentlemen around me, 
but to prove and illustrate my text, lhat our work to-day 
marks a step in the progress of the human race. 

Generalizing from our vast accumulation of experience, we 
are forced to recognize another fact that as yet has not been of 
much practical benefit to the world,—namely, that the mind, 
whether it is susceptible to spiritual disease or not, and how¬ 
ever much it may appear in the individual to be his own 
master and capable of independent volition, judged of as ex¬ 
hibited in a whole nation, is as much amenable to natural laws 
as to the material world. This is proved not only by the 
statistical facts to which I have just referred, but by a great 
number and variety of statistics not immediately connected 
with insanity. Not only the number of crimes, but the num¬ 
ber of arrests, convictions, and escapes that occur in a given 
community, vary but little from year to year. The number of 
murders and suicides that might reasonably be supposed to 
result from individual passion or misfortune sum up nearly 
the same every year. These facts indicate some general laws 
by which similar results in crime are annually produced. All 
mental operations, so far as they can be traced in the action of 
the masses, indicate control by general rules. Even the omis¬ 
sions of the memory—memory, the most important and won¬ 
derful attribute of the mind, at once the beginning and evi¬ 
dence of immortality because thereby we are enabled to live in 
the past as well as in the present—seem to be no exception. 
The Post-Office Department shows wonderful uniformity in 
the number of letters dropped, where the address or stamp has 


ADDRESS. 


263 


been forgotten. Even the number of accidents resulting from 
personal carelessness, mere slips of individual attention, are 
calculated with terrible accuracy by those who insure against 
them. These statistics go to prove that the thought which 
springs from the brain is as much under the dominion of God’s 
unchanging law as the pebble that rolls on the shore or the 
comet that flies through the heavens. 

It is chiefly by acquiring a knowledge of these laws or rules 
of God, as developed in his creation, that civilization advances ; 
that we are enabled to avoid to some extent disease and mis¬ 
fortune, and to cure and alleviate them when unavoidable. 
Not that by foreknowing these laws we can in the least change 
them. We have no evidence that the forces of nature have 
ever been increased, diminished, or interrupted, nor that the 
rules by which these forces act are less stable than the forces 
themselves. By foreknowing the seasons we are enabled in 
summer to provide for winter, and in the same way the 
knowledge of any law enables us to secure good and avoid bad 
results. 

That we have also made considerable progress in political 
and moral science, in the comprehension of the duty which the 
whole community owe to its several constituents, is shown in 
the fact that this hospital is erected by the State. In the 
olden time political theorists taught that obedience and tribute 
were due from one portion of the people to another, that one 
portion was born to privileges and another to duties. So slow 
has been the progress in this science that this opinion is still 
entertained in some modified form by nearly all civilized 
nations except our own. In this direction our country leads 
the world. We have discarded the old theory altogether and 
based our government on the theory of human equality. It is 
from this fundamental principle, developing in the light and 
warmth of Christian benevolence, that the duty of the govern¬ 
ment to all her unfortunate children, to the ignorant, poor, and 


264 


GLENN I W. SCOFIELD. 


afflicted, becomes plain. Upon this principle the government 
erects the school-house, poor-house, and hospital, and becomes 
eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, reason to the insane, and 
understanding to the simple. About a quarter of a century 
ago this commonwealth undertook the cure of the insane in 
State hospitals. I happened to represent this county in the 
Legislature about the time this policy was adopted. Dr. Cur- 
wen, the secretary of this commission, was then pressing the 
subject upon the attention of members. It seems a long time 
ago, but the doctor was the same young man then that he is to¬ 
day. His benevolent labors have crowned him with protracted 
youth. With a small appropriation obtained at that time the 
State Hospital at Harrisburg was begun. The number of 
insane in the commonwealth at that time was less than two 
thousand. It is now considerably more than four thousand. 
The State has steadily pursued the philanthropic policy then 
begun, and in pursuance of it the governor has to-day laid the 
foundation of the fourth great edifice dedicated to the care and 
cure of these afflicted people. 

I have taken this occasion to refer to our progress as indi¬ 
cated by the erection of this edifice, not by way of boast, but 
rather for cheer. Our progress has been too slow for exulta¬ 
tion. Columbus, standing on the shores of Europe, observed 
some pieces of drift, from which he inferred there was an un¬ 
known continent beyond the seas. So we, approaching the 
goal of the nineteenth century, have only gathered a few frag¬ 
ments of science, a little drift, suggestive of the vast worlds of 
undiscovered truth that may yet be revealed for the elevation 
and comfort of mankind. But while it does not become us to 
boast, we may take courage in the fact, discovered by a com¬ 
parison of distant ages with our own, that civilization has been 
somewhat advanced by additions from century to century to 
the world’s stock of knowledge, and we may entertain the hope 
that mankind, still ignorant, weak, and afflicted, may steadily 


ADDRESS. 265 

lessen their infirmities as coming ages, with their experience 
and discoveries, roll by. 

While we thus congratulate ourselves upon the progress 
shown, the thought doubtless occurs to many, “ Can the world 
hold its own ? May it not recede ? It did fall off from Egyp¬ 
tian, Grecian, and Roman civilization. There were long 
‘ Dark Ages’ after that. May they not come again ?” The 
mechanics have a machine called a ratchet. It is contrived 
to stop all backward motion, while it allows all motion for¬ 
ward. You all know what it is. The art of printing is the 
ratchet of civilization. While it is of itself a great instrument 
of progress by the diffusion of knowledge, it is also what it 
has been properly called, “ The art preservative.” Whatever 
becomes once known to the world this art retains. It was 
unknown to the ancients. Since its discovery, no steps have 
been taken backwards, no arts lost, no truth forgotten, no 
light extinguished. If we shall not have the strength in the 
future to go forward, the ratchet will at least hold us where 
we are. 


18 


266 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD % 


SPEECH 

ON THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS. 


Delivered at Warren, Pennsylvania, October 26 , 1875 . 


January 14, 1875, Congress passed an act providing for 
the resumption of specie payments on the first day of January, 
1879. In subsequent elections the whole Democratic party 
and many Republicans were arrayed against the act, demand¬ 
ing its repeal. A portion of the opposition, respectable both 
in numbers and leadership, not only demanded a repeal of 
the act, but became the advocates of an irredeemable paper 
currency, or, as it was called, “ fiat money.” 

Mr. Scofield took the stump in opposition to this “ green¬ 
back craze.” 

A report of one of his speeches delivered at Warren, Penn¬ 
sylvania, October 26, 1875, is found in the Warrren Mail of 
that date, and is as follows : 

After some preliminary remarks, Mr. Scofield took out three 
notes and, holding them up one by one, proceeded as follows: 

Here is a note made by John Doe, in which he promises to 
pay to the bearer one dollar. Here is another note made by 
the First National Bank, in which the bank agrees to pay to 
the bearer one dollar. And here is still another note made 
by the United States, called a greenback or legal-tender note, 
in which the government agrees to pay to the bearer one 




SPEECHES. 


267 


dollar. These three notes differ a little in color and style of 
printing, but they are alike in the most important feature, 
that they all agree to pay to the bearer one dollar. These 
notes are not themselves dollars, nor do they profess to be. 
Nor do they define what is meant by a dollar. For that in¬ 
formation we must go to the laws of the United States. Here 
we find that a dollar is a piece of gold weighing 25 T 8 0- grains. 
And thus we learn that John Doe, the First National Bank, 
and the United States, have each agreed to pay to the bearer 
25^j- grains of standard gold. This piece of gold, the law 
goes on to provide, “ shall be the unit of value.” In order 
that no one may be cheated either in the quality or quantity 
of the metal, the government employs experts who assay, 
weigh, and stamp this metal, and when so assayed, weighed, 
and stamped it is called coin. The commercial value of the 
metal determines the money value of the coin ; the assaying and 
weighing determine only the amount and quality of the metal. 

Why, then, do not John Doe and the bank pay their notes 
in these gold dollars ? Because the act of Congress passed 
February 25, 1862, known as the legal-tender act, requires 
the holder of these notes to accept the notes of the United 
States in payment in lieu of gold. Then why does not the 
United States pay their notes ? Because hitherto it has not 
been convenient to pay, and you cannot sue the government 
and compel payment as you can an individual. If these notes 
are ever paid, it must be by the voluntary act of the people. 
They can pay or repudiate just as they choose. Down to 
this time, the popular judgment as indicated by national legis¬ 
lation has been in favor of honest payment “at the earliest 
practicable period.” 

The act of Congress passed March 18, 1869, declares “That 
the faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the pay¬ 
ment in coin, or its equivalent, all the obligations of the 
United States not bearing interest, known as the United 


268 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


States notes.” “ And the United States also solemnly pledges 
its faith to make provision at the earliest practicable period 
for the redemption of the United States notes in coin.” The 
act of Congress passed January 14, 1875, did make provision 
therefor, and directed the Secretary of the Treasury “on and 
after the first day of January, 1879, to redeem in coin the 
United States legal-tender notes then outstanding on their 
presentation in sums not less than fifty dollars.” 

There is no excuse for repudiation. Our population is now 
more than forty millions and our wealth too large for realizing 
computation. The population doubles and the wealth quad¬ 
ruples every quarter of a century. These young people, 
before their heads are hoary, will behold one hundred million 
people within our borders. If with such resources, present 
and prospective, we weave into our early history the words 
“ dishonor” and “ broken faith,” how could we ever hold up 
our heads as the great, proud republic to lead the nations of the 
earth in the ways of liberty, equality, honor, and peace? 

I am glad to know that repudiation, pure and simple, open 
and above-board, has no avowed advocates now. But a new 
mode of payment, to wit, with a new kind of money, is pro¬ 
posed. The advocates of this new mode of payment do not 
deny that the United States honestly owe the bearer one dollar 
as stated in the promise on the note and in the law which 
authorized its issue. They do not propose to repudiate that 
promise nor repeal that law, but, on the contrary, to stand by 
both. They only propose to go back to the old law which 
declared that a dollar should consist of 25^^ grains of gold, 
and repeal that, and then make a new dollar, not out of gold 
nor silver, nor copper even, nor out of anything that has in¬ 
trinsic and commercial value, but out of paper. On this paper 
will be printed not a promise to pay a dollar like the green¬ 
back, but “ this piece of paper is a dollar, the standard and 
unit of value.” This idea is not new. But it is suggested 


SPEECHES. 


269 


anew, no doubt, and comes to have many advocates, from 
witnessing the operation of the legal-tender act. “ The green¬ 
backs,” they argue, a have been circulating ten or twelve 
years; so far only a small amount has been redeemed and yet 
they are worth about eighty-six cents on the dollar. They 
make a convenient currency; why not abandon the idea of re¬ 
demption altogether, demonetize gold and silver, and issue 
enough greenbacks, with the promise of redemption left out, 
to pay the national debt and do the business of the country?” 
This proposition is based upon the hypothesis that the value 
of money is derived not from the commercial value of the 
material out of which it is made, nor the commercial value of 
anything into which it is convertible at the will of the holder, 
but from the declarative decree or order of the government by 
which it is issued. If this hypothesis were true, if great value 
could be imparted by legislative enactment to something that 
had no value before, it would be a great blessing to the world. 
Governments could then get along without loans or taxes. 
They could easily put their stamp upon prepared paper and 
determine by law how much property it should buy. But, 
unfortunately, the hypothesis is fallacious. Governments may 
make money of anything they choose, of diamonds, gold, sil¬ 
ver, iron, or tin, of wheat, tobacco, or coal, of leather, shav¬ 
ings, or paper, but the value or purchasing-power of such 
money will, when business becomes accommodated to it, re¬ 
gardless of government orders to the contrary, correspond to 
the commercial value of the material of which it is made or 
into which it may be convertible at the holder’s pleasure. If 
a dollar is composed of 25 T 8 7 grains of gold, it will ultimately 
purchase as much as the same amount of uncoined gold will, and 
no more. If composed of 25 T 8 ir grains of silver, copper, or iron, 
it will ultimately purchase as much as the same amount of un¬ 
coined silver, copper, or iron will, and no more. If composed of 
paper, it will ultimately purchase as much as the same amount 


270 


GLENN I W. SCOFIELD. 


of unstamped paper, and no more. I make no account of coin¬ 
age, because that is only an official certificate of the amount and 
quality of the metals for which government make no charge. 

If a piece of government paper, not redeemable nor con¬ 
vertible, had any more value than any other similar paper, 
from what is that value derived? The law may declare that 
a piece of paper three inches in width and seven in length 
stamped with a government seal shall be called a dollar and 
become the standard of value. But then what value? Not 
the value of the old gold dollar, because that standard of value 
would be abolished by the law which authorized the new 
dollar. If the law which abolished gold as the standard of 
value should provide that the new dollar should have the 
value of 25^ grains of gold, we would at least know what 
value the Legislature intended to impart to it. And if the 
law should prove effective, if it produced the effect intended 
and directed, its value would be equal to the gold dollar and 
therefore readily convertible into it; and thus we would have 
the much-dreaded specie payments. But no such value could 
be imparted by legislation. The new money would rapidly 
depreciate as existing contracts disappeared, and in a little 
while would be classed with French assignats, Continental and 
Confederate money. 

We are not left to argument alone upon this subject. The 
idea that governments can impart value to a valueless thing 
by legislating it into money is, as I stated, a very old one, 
always disproved and exploded, and yet frequently revived 
and sometimes tried. Several of the English kings tried 
debasing the coin, but the new coin soon sank to the value of 
the inferior metals of which it was composed. The Spartans 
tried iron, the Carthaginians leather, and many have tried 
paper; but in all cases the money soon came to possess only 
the commercial value of its composing materials instead of the 
higher value assigned it by law. 


SPEECHES. 


271 


In selecting a material out of which to manufacture money, 
therefore, the first inquiry should be, Has it large commercial 
value, or, as it is often expressed, has it large intrinsic value, 
value as a commodity, independent of the new use to which 
it is to be applied ? * If not, you need inquire no further. It 
is worthless for money and must be rejected. “But,” says 
General Butler, “ money is only the measure of value, as the 
yardstick is the measure of cloth or the quart cup the measure 
of milk, and needs no value in itself.” Let us see. The yard¬ 
stick is the measure of length, and in order to measure length 
it must itself have length. The quart cup is a measure of 
quantity, bulk, or space, and in order to measure successfully 
it must itself have space. You cannot measure a coil of rope 
with a handful of shot, nor a quart of milk on the back of a 
spoon. If you wish to ascertain your weight, your measure at 
the other end of the balance must be a weight not a feather. 
So to measure value the measure itself must have value. 
Money is the measure of value and, therefore, must itself 
possess value, and then, like the measure of length, space, or 
weight, it can be used over and over again and applied to every 
kind of property whose value you wish to record. 

But why stick to gold alone? Why not take diamonds, 
wheat, tobacco, iron, or other property ? All these have value. 
Yes, but while great value is indispensable, other qualities are 
important. Stability in value, convenience in handling, sub¬ 
division, and coinage should also be considered. The dia¬ 
mond has great value, stability in price, and is convenient to 
handle, but it is not susceptible of proper division and coinage. 
Iron is easily subdivided and coined, but its value is very 
fluctuating, and so low that transportation is impossible. To¬ 
bacco was once used as money in Virginia and South Caro¬ 
lina, but was found so inconvenient to handle and so uncertain 
in value that it was soon abandoned. Gold has both great 
and staple value, is easily handled, and is susceptible of sub- 


272 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


division and coinage to any desired extent. Commerce has 
selected it as a medium of exchange because it has these quali¬ 
ties. The traders used it before the law came in to coin and 
legalize it. Governments did not arbitrarily select it. If all 
laws upon the subject of money were at once abolished, com¬ 
merce would still employ the uncoined gold as the best standard 
of value and medium of exchange the world over. 

But the greenback, it is said in reply, is not now redeemed, 
and yet it is not very greatly depreciated. True, but the 
greenback has a promise of redemption, and there is a general 
belief that the promise will be kept. Some of it has already 
been redeemed. This belief keeps it going, just as it is at 
times with your unpaid county orders and city warrants. 
Although somewhat depreciated, the expectation that they will 
be redeemed in time keeps them in circulation. In the year 
before the war closed, when the contest seemed doubtful, the 
greenback dollar was worth only thirty or forty cents. In the 
year after the war closed, and the ability of the government 
to keep its promise was better established, its value was 
doubled, and it has since appreciated as the financial condition 
of the country has improved. On the contrary, the Confed¬ 
erate currency went down as the prospect of success and ability 
to pay went down, and upon the surrender became entirely 
worthless. Let Congress repeal the promise to pay and declare 
the greenback forever irredeemable, and it would soon cease 
to circulate at all. Or, let Congress enlarge the amount now 
out, or take the back track on the question of resumption and 
thus weaken the expectation of ultimate payment, and it will 
at once fall far below its present depreciation. I suppose that 
it is what the advocates, of “ more money” want. They cry 
“ more money,” but they mean more depreciation. 

Again, in support of irredeemable paper money, it is said 
that it will be accredited by the people because it will be “ sus¬ 
tained by all the wealth of the country.” But that is just 


SPEECHES. 


273 


what will not be. The argument contradicts the theory. The 
theory provides for a paper money to which the wealth of the 
country is never to be applied by way of payment or redemp¬ 
tion, and the argument is that such paper money will be good 
because the wealth of the country is to be so applied. 

But this irredeemable paper money would be a legal tender, 
and would, therefore, pay debts. Would not that give it 
value ? Certainly, if made exchangeable for anything, it ac¬ 
quires the value of that thing. If made exchangeable for debts, 
it would become as valuable as the debts. Let us see how 
valuable they would be. A debt that is payable and converti¬ 
ble into gold is as valuable as gold. One that is payable and 
convertible into greenbacks is as valuable as the greenbacks, 
but a debt that is payable and convertible into irredeemable 
paper money only is only as valuable as that kind of money. 
If, therefore, all the gold and greenback debts become payable 
in irredeemable paper money, they at once lose their gold and 
greenback value and sink to the value of the money in which 
they are to be paid. So that you could not in this way secure 
any permanent value for it. As soon as the existing gold and 
greenback contracts were paid, or, rather, repudiated with this 
kind of money, there would be no further use for it. No 
new contracts would be made on the value of it, because it 
would have no certain value. Either credit would be aban¬ 
doned altogether or debts would be made payable in gold and 
silver or other kinds of property. 

It would still be received for taxes. Yes, but taxes collected 
in this kind of money would not go very far towards defraying 
expenses. The taxes must go up in amount as the money 
goes down in value, and soon taxes would have to be levied 
and collected in kind, as they were in the Confederacy. So it 
would acquire no permanent value in that way. 

“ But,” says Judge Kelley, “you need not go to the trouble 
to redeem your greenback in gold in order to keep up its value. 


274 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Make it convertible into my three-sixty-five bond, and that 
will make it equal to gold.” Let us see. The note has no 
value except what it derives from its convertibility. If con¬ 
vertible into coin, it would be equal to the coin ; if into a bond, 
equal to the value of the bond. Now, what is the bond worth? 
Just what it is payable in, of course, and no more. What is it 
payable in? In coin? No. In property of any kind ? No. 
Only in these same notes. So you make the notes derive their 
value from the bonds, and the bonds from the notes, neither 
having any value of themselves. 

All such financial schemes necessarily embrace in their re¬ 
sults repudiation pure and simple, but not open and above¬ 
board. To the dishonesty of repudiation they add the 
meanness of dissimulation and false pretence. 

The wit of man has never yet devised and never can devise 
a way to make good money out of paper, except through re¬ 
demption. All argument proves it. The experience of the 
world attests it. We must and will return to specie payments. 
There are but two roads that lead in this direction. The one 
is, to fix a time for resumption some distance ahead, so as to 
give fair notice to everybody, and then make all possible prep¬ 
aration. As the time approaches, if it shall appear that the 
preparations are not quite complete, let it be postponed a little 
longer. In this way we will arrive at specie payments, with 
some inconvenience, to be sure, but without dishonor, and with 
steady though moderate prosperity. This is the road the Re¬ 
publicans have chosen. 

The other road leads through inflation, irredeemable or soft 
money, a short carnival of knavish speculation, a great break¬ 
down at last, repudiation partial or total, a long prostration 
of all enterprise, all business, and all confidence among men; 
but it leads you to specie payments in the end. Choose which 
road you will travel. 


SPEECHES. 


275 


SPEECH 

ON THE [NOMINATION OF JAMES A. GARFIELD AND CHESTER A. 
ARTHUR. 


Delivered at Warren, Pennsylvania , June 26, 1880, and subsequently pub¬ 
lished, as a campaign tract, by the Republican National Committee. 


Five distinguished gentlemen were proposed at Chicago,— 
Grant, Blaine, Sherman, Edmunds,'’and Washburne. Garfield 
was chosen because he was not in the fierce rivalry of these 
great men, but not because he was inferior to any of them. 
He w r as not in the list of candidates, because he did not wish 
to be in the way of the great financier who lives in the same 
State. They all hail his nomination as one eminently fit to be 
made. He has a brilliant record as a soldier, is a statesman 
of great strength, learned, practical, patient, good-natured, 
and full of days’ work. But his merits as a soldier, statesman, 
and scholar, great as they are, do not overshadow his high 
character for personal integrity. I served in the House with 
him for twelve years, have seen him often in committee, in 
his office, in society, and at work on his farm with his boys 
and hired man, and I think I know him very well. He is 
thoroughly honest. I do not mean he is always studying to 
“ avoid the appearance of evil,”—rogues only do that. His 
integrity is real, not simulated. He is honest-hearted, honest 
in his convictions, feelings, and purposes,—honest all through. 
He is plain and accessible in manner, frugal and simple in his 
style of living. I never saw him angry, not even impatient 
or out of humor. 

I do not personally know Mr. Arthur, but I have every 




276 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD . 


reason to believe that he is an able and honest man, and well 
worthy of our support. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFEDERATES. 

But this is not a contest between candidates, scarcely between 
parties. It is a contest to determine whether the Union-loving 
North—the peaceful, industrious, enterprising, and populous 
North—shall come under the misrule of the narrow, arro¬ 
gant, and reckless faction that now dominates the South. 

The leaders of the late Confederacy have determined to se¬ 
cure the control of the national government. It is not an 
unnatural nor an unlawful ambition. From the day in which 
they were forced back into the Union to this hour, they have 
steadily planned and plotted for supremacy. I do not mean 
they met in convention, agreed upon that purpose and the 
means of its accomplishment, and formally announced them 
to the country. There is a logic in the interest and wishes of 
men, in the conflict of factions and persons, more potential and 
strategic than the resolves of conventions. 

The first step in their programme was to acquire control of 
their own States, as they are pleased to call the late slave 
States. That is already accomplished. I will not stop now 
to inquire how it was accomplished. So fraudulent, so cruel, 
and so murderous were the means employed, that a truthful 
statement would be scarcely credited. It is enough for my 
present purpose to know that the Confederate leaders now 
dominate these sixteen States. That domination gives them 
thirty-two Senators of their own selection. If they can secure 
six more from the North to act with them, they have, with 
the Vice-President, a majority of the Senate. When they 
carry all their districts it gives them one hundred and six 
Representatives in the House. If they can secure forty-one 
more from the North to act with them, they have a majority 
in the House. It gives them one hundred and thirty-eight 


SPEECHES. 


277 


votes in the electoral college. If they can secure forty-seven 
more from the North to vote for their candidates, they choose 
the President and Vice-President. 

In the present Senate and House they have, with their allies 
who, under caucus dictation, vote with them for the most part, 
a working majority; but a Republican President stands in the 
way of entire and exclusive Confederate control of legislation 
and patronage. With all their bloody triumphs in the South, 
and their imperial caucus reign in the Senate and House, they 
are compelled to see Union laws, which they have declared 
shall be wiped out, remain on the statute-book, and Union 
men, whom they have declared must go, exercise the judicial, 
executive, and military powers of the republic. To remove 
these last obstacles to their unrestrained domination is their 
purpose in the present campaign. They naturally turn to the 
Democratic party of the North—the party that has so long 
held up their weary arms—for help. “ Give us forty-seven 
electors” is the demand of Davis, Hill, Blackburn & Co., and 
the Northern leaders will make a lively effort to comply with 
the demand. Suppose they succeed,—suppose they are able 
to hand over to the Confederates the forty-seven electors, and 
their candidates are thus chosen and sworn into office in March, 
1881. They will then have the President, Vice-President, 
Senate, and House,—an administration whose component parts 
are, Democrats, forty-seven; Confederates, one hundred and 
thirty-eight. 

What will such an administration do? 

The first thing to be done is the selection of a cabinet. 
This is very important. These officers transact all the busi¬ 
ness of the government, control all the minor appointments, 
and shape the policy of the administration. There are seven 
of them. The Confederates, having contributed three-fourths 
of the electoral votes, will be entitled to five of them. 
Whether they claim their proportion in numbers or not, be 


278 


OLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


assured that no influence not in harmony with Confederate 
interest and feeling will be tolerated in these seats of power. 
The ministers to represent us—no, not us, but them—their 
interests, theories, manners, and civilization, in foreign coun¬ 
tries, as well as all officers at home, not necessarily local, will 
be selected in the same sectional proportion. Bear in mind, 
I am not criticising the change of officers; that may be 
expected with a change of parties and policies. I am simply 
calling your attention to the character of the new appointees. 
All who are not Confederates must be Confederate “ sympa¬ 
thizers.” By the time their Congress assembles in December, 
the whole civil list, except the judges, who hold for life, will 
be decorated with the names of the late disunionists and their 
friends. The power, the honors and emoluments of office will 
belong to the open or secret enemies of the Union, while 
those who fought and suffered to preserve it and make it free 
and great will be left to neglect, proscription, and persecution. 
The capital of the country, preserved by Northern valor, re¬ 
built by Northern enterprise and beautified by Northern civil¬ 
ization, will become a Confederate capital and lapse into the 
ways of the South. 

Let no one doubt that the South will claim their full share 
of the spoils. The talent of the North takes largely to com¬ 
merce, manufactures, literature, science, and great enterprises. 
Whatever of these exist in the South is in the hands of citi¬ 
zens of the North, for no man of Northern birth is ever 
allowed to feel at home as a citizen of the South. Politics 
is almost the only resource of the natives. Hence they are 
rapacious for office. 

Having thus secured the offices, their two Houses will as¬ 
semble in December, and, of course, will be organized in the 
Confederate interest. The officers will be agreed upon in 
caucus, where the Confederates will be in a majority of three 
to one over their Northern allies. They will thus secure the 


SPEECHES. 


279 


control of all committees, which originate and shape important 
legislation. It is so even now. The white population of the 
South is less than one-fourth of the population of the whole 
country, and yet out of the one hundred and two committees 
in the two Houses, the South has the chairmanship of fifty- 
eight, and the other three-fourths of the population only forty- 
four. This, too, in the face of the coming election, when they 
were anxious to exhibit themselves to the best advantage to 
conciliate and deceive the North. If they are so arrogant 
now, when they bear sway in only one branch of the gov¬ 
ernment, what toleration can Union men expect when they 
swagger in power through all the departments ? 

One of the first things to be undertaken after the two 
Houses are thus secured will be the reorganization of the army 
and navy. The Confederate brigadiers who cannot come to 
Congress would like to command the army they failed to con¬ 
quer. The law now forbids it. It will not take them long to 
repeal that. They have a bill already prepared in the Senate. 
It passed to a third reading on the call of the yeas and nays, 
and all the Northern Democrats, along with the “ brigadiers/’ 
voted for it. Mr. Tucker, a former Confederate and present 
Representative from Virginia, had before proposed it as a 
rider to an appropriation bill, but it was ascertained that it 
would encounter a veto, and both Houses deemed it wise to 
let it sleep till after the election. The bill to legislate Fitz 
John Porter, with sixty thousand dollars as a reward for the 
betrayal of the Union army, back into the service, after 
passing to a third reading in the Senate, was allowed to sleep 
in the same way. They can hardly bide their time. They 
push these bills far enough to encourage and consolidate the 
South, but not so far that a veto of a Republican President 
would bring them prominently to the attention of the North 
in the coming election. If they secure the President, these 
measures will wake up and pass into laws. 


280 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Not only will rebel officers be allowed to enter the military 
service, but the army and navy will be so reorganized that 
ultimately they will fall under Confederate leadership alto¬ 
gether. Their plan, as I understand it, is first to reduce the 
number of officers under the pretext that we have too many, 
and after the Union officers are mustered out or put upon the 
retired list, under some pretended scare about a foreign war, 
again enlarge the number, and fill the vacancies with Confed¬ 
erates. Whatever their way of accomplishment may be, of 
this be assured, that whenever they secure the President and 
a majority of each House, a large portion of loyal army and 
navy officers will have to go, and disloyal officers take their 
places. Why not ? It is all in the power of Congressional 
legislation. Idle and poor Confederate officers crave it. The 
South will demand it of their own Kepresentatives, and the 
vote in the Senate on the bills to authorize rebel officers to 
enter the army and to restore Porter, proves that enough 
Northern Democrats can be coerced by caucus to make the 
necessary majority. 

Having arranged for the ultimate control of the army and 
navy, legislation will begin. What they call a revision of the 
tariff and revenue laws will doubtless receive early attention. 
They have always attributed the prosperity of the North and 
the poverty of the South to the operation of these laws. They 
cannot understand that a country where idleness is honored 
and labor despised must always be poor, and one where indus¬ 
try is honored and encouraged will always be rich. They will 
so revise the tariff that Northern industries will be crippled 
and the revenue diminished. Quite likely they will abolish 
the whiskey and tobacco tax, of which they constantly com¬ 
plain, and put in its place a tax that will, by espionage and 
exposure, annoy and repress the business and enterprises of the 
North, while it gives but little revenue to the Treasury. They 
will not be alarmed by diminished revenues, for their theory 


SPEECHES. 


281 


of finance is after the Confederate and “ greenback” order, to 
put little into the Treasury and take a great deal out. 

Their disbursements will be equally sectional. They be¬ 
lieve their country can be built up by the improvement of 
their rivers and harbors and the erection of public buildings 
with Northern money. They think that ships will call if 
they make a channel where there are no freights, and imports 
will arrive if they build a custom-house where there are no 
consumers. The Southern claims, the great cotton tax and 
countless others, will not be neglected. Four years ago, Mr. 
Tilden, after he was nominated, pledged himself to oppose 
these claims. In the midst of the campaign the South could 
only make wry faces, but at Cincinnati they took their re¬ 
venge. They buried him with his pledge. They have taken 
an unpledged man as their candidate and the claims are all 
there. 

Many have already had a first reading in Congress. They 
are swelling in the sap, and if the crisp influence of the North 
is removed from Washington they will spring out like the 
leaves of June. And these claims, you must remember, are 
not barred bv the fourteenth amendment, as are some others 
which I will presently discuss. 

They will not long delay an attack upon the currency. It 
is too safe and uniform in value to suit them, and must be 
reformed. The National banks exist in violation of “ State 
rights.” Besides, they have to give security to make their 
notes as good as gold in every nook and corner of the country. 
That is a great hardship. They cannot get out worthless 
money, and the whole party North and South have agreed to 
abolish them. To be sure, they have not agreed to revive 
State banks, but that revival comes as a matter of course. It 
will require but a single line of legislation to put them all in 
operation, for the State banking laws have never been repealed. 
They remain as they were before a national currency was 

19 


282 


GLENFI W. SCOFIELD. 


invented and adopted by the Republicans. It was a Federal 
tax of ten per cent, on their circulation that forced them to re¬ 
tire. Repeal that tax, and they come up like mummies at the 
resurrection. A one-line rider on an appropriation bill will do 
the business. The South demands it; “State rights” demand 
it. It must be done. And then the country will be again 
drenched with “ red dog” and u wild cat.” It will not be 
necessary even to abolish the National banks, for a worthless 
currency always drives out good. 

What they will do about greenbacks is not so certain. On 
this question they are not agreed. Some desire to keep them 
and issue more without redemption and without limit, at least 
enough to pay the hated bond-holders. Others hold that a 
national currency is “ centralization,” that “ State rights” de¬ 
mand that it should be issued by the States alone. Of 
course, they will continue to tax the people two millions per 
month, twenty-four millions a year, to buy unneeded silver 
with. The government vaults are all full; they can hold no 
more, and it is piled up in the halls of the public buildings; 
but the buying still goes on. It is Democratic reform. The 
Secretary of the Treasury informed Congress of the situation, 
and urged them to stop this waste of the people’s money. In 
reply he was told to build more vaults and keep on buying. 
They might just as well tax the people twenty-four millions 
a year and throw it into the sea. But these financiers think it 
spites the capitalists, as they are pleased to call economical and 
thrifty people, and so they continue to wring from the tax¬ 
payers two millions per month and lay it away in the dark. 

When they feel secure in the control of the President and 
the two Houses of Congress, when Confederates or manageable 
Northerners are in all the places of power, when the 'personnel 
of the army and navy has been so far worked over that the 
leadership is substantially Southern, when Northern industry 
and enterprise have been repressed by their revenue revision, 


SPEECHES. 


283 


when sectional appropriations have been reversed so that the 
little end of the country shall have the big end of the purse, 
when the national currency shall begin to surrender to “ red 
dog” and “ wild cat” according to “ State rights,”—other re¬ 
forms still more disastrous will begin to loom up. Payment 
for slaves, assumption of the Confederate debt, and pensioning 
of Confederate soldiers will most certainly be pressed. From 
their stand-point, there is great plausibility, not to say justice, 
in these claims. In the District of Columbia the government 
paid for the slaves. It was proposed in Congress at that time 
to do the same thing in the States, and the proposition had 
many supporters. Their slave property was taken from them 
without their consent. In some of the States—“ My Mary¬ 
land” I particularly recollect—inventories of the slaves, their 
ages, sex, and market value, with a view to their ultimate 
payment by the United States, were undertaken by State 
authority. These inventories are carefully preserved among 
the records of the States, awaiting the return of the Confeder¬ 
ates to power. They regard the war, not as a rebellion 
against the United States, but as a “war between States.” 
They so call it in their speeches and histories. If the States 
reunited assume the debt of one party to such a war, why not 
the other ? If the soldiers on the one side are pensioned, why 
not on the other? So they reason. As our Pennsylvania 
juries sometimes report, “Neither the prosecutor nor the 
defendant to blame, and the county to pay the costs.” 

If these assumptions are found impracticable, the next best 
thing is to repudiate them all. Put the Northern bonds and 
pensions and the Southern bonds and pensions in one casket 
and bury them together. “ Let by-gones be by-gones,” and 
all mementos of a “ fraternal war” removed out of sight. 
Repudiation is not disgraceful in the South. They think 
more of honor than honesty. They are used to repudiation. 
Within the last few years they have repudiated their State 


284 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


and municipal debts to the amount of about three hundred 
million dollars with apparent relish. A little debate in the 
House last April on the celebrated Weaver resolution for 
“ fiat money,” illustrates the readiness of the South to agree 
to auy form of repudiation. The resolution provided that 
fiat money should be a legal tender for all debts, public and 
private. General Chalmers, of Mississippi, requested Mr. 
Weaver to strike out “ private,” so that “fiat” could be used 
to pay public, but not private debts, and assured him that 
this modification would secure for his resolution a great many 
votes. Mr. Weaver refused to make the modification. It 
was on a motion to suspend the rules, and an amendment was 
not in order. Mr. Samford, of Alabama, spoke in favor of 
the general purpose of the resolution, but said he should vote 
against it because it proposed “ to make money out of paper, 
redeemable in nothing, and yet give it a legal-tender quality 
in payment of private claims between citizens.” “ If the word 
private had been omitted, as General Chalmers requested, he 
should vote for the balance.” It was perfectly proper, ac¬ 
cording to these Confederate leaders, to cheat the public cred¬ 
itor with this fiat stuff, but not for citizens to cheat each other 
out of their private claims. It was doubtless a fair specimen 
of Southern sentiment, but the rules prevented a further ex¬ 
pression of it at that time. 

But it is said that the assumption of Confederate debts, the 
payment for slaves, as well as the repudiation of the Union 
debts and pensions, is prohibited by the fourteenth amend¬ 
ment. That is true; but it is almost equally certain that as 
soon as they feel secure in power, they will begin to hack 
and hew not only at the fourteenth amendment, but the thir¬ 
teenth, which abolished slavery, and the fifteenth, which allows 
colored men to vote. You will remember that not only the 
Confederates but the Democratic leaders in the North fought 
all these amendments step by step as they were adopted. They 


SPEECHES. 


285 


claimed at the time, and for many years after, that each step 
so taken was unconstitutional. First, the presentation by 
Congress to the States was void because all the Confederate 
States were not at that time represented at Washington. 
Second, because in making up the three-fourths of the States 
whose assent was required, some of the “ carpet-bag” govern¬ 
ments were counted. Third, because the States of Ohio and 
New Jersey were counted for the fourteenth and the State of 
New York for the fifteenth amendments, notwithstanding the 
assent of those States had, pending the question, been with¬ 
drawn by the Democrats. They have never agreed that these 
amendments were just nor that they were legally adopted. 
They submit to them only because the Supreme Court have 
pronounced in their favor. The Confederates desire and intend 
to wipe them all out. They cannot do that by a simple act of 
repeal as they can other war legislation. To repeal them re¬ 
quires the assent of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths 
of all the States as it did to adopt them. But a Democratic 
Supreme Court might declare, as did the Democratic National 
Convention of 1868, that they were never legally adopted, 
but were “ unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.” 

The way to secure a Democratic court has already been 
planned and the work begun. The bench at present con¬ 
sists of nine judges, seven Republicans and two Democrats. 
They hold for life, and can only be removed by impeachment. 
They will not try that: it requires two-thirds. There is a 
much easier way to obtain control of the bench, to wit, en¬ 
large the number,—enough to overthrow the Republican ma¬ 
jority. That can be done by a simple act of Congress, and 
with the plausible pretext that the business before the court 
requires more judges. In pursuance of this plan, on the 26th 
of last January, Mr. Manning, of Mississippi, introduced a 
bill to make the court consist of twenty-one judges. The 
judges are divided into three separate courts for the despatch 


286 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


of business, but meet in banc to decide constitutional and other 
important questions. The bill was twice read and then re¬ 
ferred to a friendly committee. If they carry this election the 
bill will be reported and passed, and they will then add twelve 
new judges, Confederates or in sympathy with them, giving 
them fourteen out of the twenty-one judges on the bench. 
Soon after the introduction of this bill, the Democrats began 
a systematic attack upon the Republican judges of the court, 
charging them with making partisan decisions. The decisions 
complained of sustained the amendments and the laws made 
to enforce them. 

These attacks continued from time to time as opportunity 
presented till the adjournment of Congress. A few specimens 
of these attacks I trust will not fatigue you. February 18, 
Mr. Knott, of Kentucky, chairman of the Judiciary Com¬ 
mittee to which this bill was referred, came out with an elabo¬ 
rate criticism upon a decision of the Supreme Court on a con¬ 
stitutional question, in which he characterized the majority of 
the judges as being u hopelessly lost in the fog.” One of their 
opinions he calls “ plausible sophistry,” and another *“ mere 
drivel,” and takes occasion to laud a Democratic judge to the 
great disparagement of his associates. On the 18th of March, 
Mr. Cox, of New York, spoke with great contempt of the 
judges, called it a “ packed, partisan, and demoralized” court, 
and the official record says this sentence was followed by “ loud 
applause on the Democratic side.” On the 19th of March, 
Mr. Buckner, of Missouri, denounced the court as a “ packed 
tribunal.” He charged that “ they had gone to the very ex¬ 
treme of consolidation and centralization of the powers of the 
government” to sustain Republican legislation, but to sustain 
party on the electoral commission “ they had gone to the ex¬ 
treme verge of State rights.” On the same day, Mr. Ewing, 
of Ohio, spoke of the Supreme Court as being governed by 
party, and declared that certain of their opinions should not 


SPEECHES. 


287 


be considered final, but observed “ pro tempore” only. April 
30, Mr. Atherton, of Ohio, in a speech which he held a whole 
week for revision, after characterizing the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina (composed of Republican judges) as a “ court 
incapable of reasoning,” a court that “ writes itself an ass,” 
says, “ this sapient North Carolina court has found willing 
pupils in the Republican members of the Supreme Court of 
the United States,” which members he calls the “ illogical 
majority.” “ Appointed as the slaves of party, it is not strange 
that it should continue to do the dirty work of its masters.” 
On the 19th of May, Mr. Voorhees, Senator from Indiana, 
in speaking of the Supreme Court, charged that they “ had 
overruled their well-settled opinions” and “ made a political 
decision to order.” On May 10, Mr. Kitchen, from North 
Carolina, in a written speech denounced the court in very bitter 
and abusive language, many times repeated. The court, he 
says, “in its chariot of fire rolls through the preamble and 
body of the Constitution,” and in its “ infidelity to the Consti¬ 
tution rides over the decisions of ninety years.” He calls 
down upon the judges and other persons in office, whom he 
classes together as plotters against the Constitution, the 
“ thunderbolts of Jehovah’s eternal justice,” and threatens that 
they shall be driven from power by the “ fiery indignation of 
an inflamed people.” It may be said that this is the bombast 
of a weak man. So perhaps it is, but it tells the purpose of 
abler men too prudent to threaten before the election. A great 
English statesman used to inquire what the fools among his 
opponents were saying. 

It is not difficult to see that the purpose of this continued 
systematic and most undeserved criticism and abuse of the 
judges is to prepare the way for a Confederate court through 
the Manning bill. 

In speculating as to what the Confederates will do if they 
get the power (for they are running a masked campaign), we 


288 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


should not forget that before the war it was the policy of the 
South, in order to make the slave power strong in the Senate, 
to keep even with the North in the admission of new States. 
In pursuance of this policy, provision was made in the act of 
Congress of March 1, 1845, for the annexation of Texas, to 
divide that territory, whenever the population should become 
sufficient, into five States. The population, as will appear 
by the census, is much more than is required. The slave- 
power as such has passed away, but the policy survives in 
homogeneal interests, sympathy, suffering, resentment, climate, 
and civilization of the Confederates., Give them the President 
and both Houses of Congress, and it will not take long to 
arrange the division. I know it is said that the Legislature 
of Texas will not consent. Why not? They get eight ad¬ 
ditional United States Senators, and that is a pretty strong 
argument for her ambitious politicians. There is also con¬ 
siderable diversity of interests in the different parts of the 
State. These facts, together with the pressure of the whole 
South to acquire this vast additional political power, will easily 
overcome the little State pride that may stand in the way. 
Northern Democrats, who are so often misled by the South, 
will readily agree to it. By this division the Confederate 
power, already disproportionately large, would be increased by 
eight additional Senators. 

But this is not all. On the 7th of January last, Mr. Wad- 
dill, a Democrat of Missouri, introduced into the House a bill 
to organize the Indian territory lying west of Arkansas into 
a Federal territory to be called Oklahoma, preparatory to its 
admission as a State. The Indians, who are considerably 
advanced in civilization, are to be made citizens, certain lands 
are to be divided among them in severalty, and the remainder 
opened to settlement. It will be remembered that these 
Indians were slave-holders before the war, that they raised an 
army and joined the rebellion. These people, with the settlers 


SPEECHES. 


289 


already organized to rush in from the adjoining States of 
Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri, would soon mould the terri¬ 
tory into a reliable Confederate State. 

Nor is this all. The policy of creating new States to en¬ 
large the number of Confederate Senators can, and no doubt 1 
will, be carried still further. Utah, to escape what the Mor¬ 
mons call the “ persecution’’ of Federal legislation, has long 
desired to enter the Union as a State. The Republican party 
will not consent except upon condition, that polygamy shall 
be forever abandoned. I do not suppose that the Democrats 
or Confederates would abstractly sanction polygamy; but 
with a strong political motive they, no doubt, would vote to 
admit Utah as a State. “ Slavery and polygamy” have al¬ 
ways been coupled together in Republican denunciation, and 
the Confederates, independent of their desire to secure two 
additional Senators, must feel a little tenderness for the “ twin 
relic” of their buried institution. And the Mormons, who 
enslave their women, will not feel unkindly towards a people 
who enslave their labor. They also sympathize with seces¬ 
sion. Anxious to become a nation by themselves, they could 
be relied upon to make a first-rate sovereign, independent, 
rebellious, Confederate State. 

New Mexico, which has about population enough for a 
State, will be next taken in hand. It lies in Southern lati¬ 
tudes, immediately west of the Confederate State of Texas. 
The large native population are uneducated and of Spanish 
civilization. It is confidently believed that with a year or 
two of territorial control, it can be converted into a Confed¬ 
erate, or at least into a South-serving, Democratic State. 

In this way the South will, in a short time, secure fourteen 
additional Senators; to wit, eight from Texas, two from 
Oklahoma, two from Utah, and two from New Mexico. 

How much further they will attempt to carry this policy, 
Heaven only knows. It is said that a plan to annex another 


290 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


portion of Mexico is even now maturing. In this scheme 
certain speculative interests in the North combine with politi¬ 
cal interests in the South. The speculators expect to make 
fortunes in Mexican mines, land grants, railroad privileges, 
etc., while the Confederates will not only secure more Southern 
territory to be converted into sympathetic States, but in the 
war that may threaten or follow, find reasonable excuse to 
place their brigadiers in the control of the army. The alleged 
incursions into Texas is to be the excuse for an invasion of 
Mexico, and a forced treaty of peace with a cession of territory 
is expected to follow. 

In the mean time, Northern territories, overflowing with in¬ 
dustrious, enterprising, and peaceful populations, set down in 
the revised vocabulary of the South as “ Northern mudsills,” 
will be held in a territorial condition, or admitted with areas too 
large to allow them a fair proportion of power in the Senate. 

But it is said the Northern Democrats will resist the Con¬ 
federate policy. Possibly so to some extent, but I fear it will 
be but little. Resistance under the circumstances is not easy. 
They will be in a small minority of the party,—out-voted two 
or three to one in caucus. The policy will not be voted upon 
as a whole. It will come up piece by piece and item by item, 
with plausible pretexts on each occasion. Before them will be 
the persuasive power of executive patronage, and behind the 
coercive power of caucus. All may not yield, but enough will 
yield to make a majority, and excuses and defences will be 
invented to soothe the betrayed people at home. How has it 
been in the past ? Have they not always surrendered to the 
South ? Did they not, in violation of pledges, vote down the 
Wilmot Proviso that the masters might make California a 
slave State ? Did they not against their own convictions vote 
for the fugitive-slave law because the masters demanded it ? 
Did they not vote to repeal the Missouri Compromise, that 
Kansas might be made a slave State, not because they desired 


SPEECHES. 


291 


it, but because it was demanded by the solid South ? Did 
they not suffer the Union to be dissolved under Buchanan at 
the demand of the solid South? For four years did they not 
throw all possible obstacles in the way of restoration in the 
interest of the rebel South ? Did they not vote against the 
homestead law, and their President, Buchanan, veto it to 
please the solid South ? When in forty years have the leaders 
resisted the dictation of the South? Van Buren made some 
resistance on the Texas question in 1844, and they drove him 
out of the convention, and finally from the party. Cass took 
ground for the Wilmot Proviso, and his early and humiliating 
recantation was demanded as the price of an empty nomina¬ 
tion. Douglas, having yielded much, refused to yield more, 
and they organized a bolt and drove him to his grave. Every 
leader from that time to this who has dared to resist the South 
has been consigned to private life, or found a home and a wel¬ 
come in the Republican party. Tilden declared against South¬ 
ern claims in 1876, and they have refused him a renomination. 

Have they not taken Northern candidates? Yes, to fool 
us out of the forty-seven electoral votes. Why else did they 
not select their own men? They selected them, however, 
under the two-thirds rule, so that none could be chosen by the 
Northern majority. “ A Northern man with Southern prin¬ 
ciples” was their motto before the war, and it is their motto 
now. They elected a Northern man Speaker of the House, 
but took care that the committees that control legislation 
should be made up in the interests of the South. 

They do not dare to put up one of their own men. If they 
were to hoist their real colors they could not hope for a single 
Northern elector. In the last four Presidential elections they 
have condescended to play a game of deception. They could 
not attend the convention in 1864, but from the Canada 
border they advised the nomination of a Union general. The 
trick failed. In 1868 they attended in person and selected a 


292 


QLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


Northern Democrat, but the deception was still more apparent 
than before, and of course failed. President Johnson and 
General Hancock espoused their cause in that campaign, but 
the people were not deceived by distinguished names. In 1872 
they attempted to cover their purposes with the name of a 
great and earnest but eccentric Republican. “ That,” they 
soliloquized, “ will deceive the very elect.” That device also 
failed. In 1876 they again tried , a Northern Democrat, 
masked as a reformer, but Republicans were not misled. Now 
they go back to their first experiment and nominate another 
Union general. It is another effort at deception, and I am 
sure it will not succeed. Beneath all these various disguises 
protrude Confederate boots. 

The Confederates feel safe with their present candidates if 
they should happen to be elected. General Hancock was edu¬ 
cated in the aristocratic school at West Point when it was 
fragrant with nullifications and all the heresies of the old 
Southern masters. There they taught him State rights as they 
practised them in the rebellion. They excuse his adherence 
to the Union cause, because his State did not secede. They 
educated him to abide by the decision of his State, and he did. 
But as soon as the war was over he took the Confederate side 
in politics. He will veto, they insist, no bill a Confederate 
Congress will pass. 

Mr. English was always their man. He served them 
faithfully before the war,—got down so low that even the 
Indiana Democrats rejected him, and he disappeared from 
public sight. The returning Confederates remembered their 
faithful old servant, and when they called, he recognized the 
master’s voice and came cheerfully forth and bowed his 
shoulders for the saddle. 

Our Monongahela River rises in the south, but runs north 
for a considerable distance, then turning southward, empties 
its waters into the Southern Gulf. The Democratic party is 


SPEECHES. 


293 


like it. Though its source and strength is in the South, it 
holds a northerly course until after the election; but when 
Congress assembles, it makes a short bend southward and 
empties the power it has deceitfully gathered into the Con¬ 
federate maelstrom. The roll-call of slaves on Bunker Hill 
is not talked of now, but in its place the South stands in the 
halls of Congress and calls the roll of its Northern helpers. 
If there is doubt about the response, a caucus is called in 
which the South has the majority and acquiescence secured. 
During the sessions of the present Congress, if it was not 
humiliating, it would be laughable to notice the frequent calls 
for caucus when a veto or some un-Southern measure un¬ 
expectedly came up. 

It is in this way that the solid South, with its one hundred 
and thirty-eight votes and the forty-seven which they hope to 
secure from the North, propose to dominate the Union. 

The antagonism between the interests of the Union and 
the late Confederacy constitutes the leading issue in this cam¬ 
paign. The Democrats try to avoid it and get up abstract 
issues. They talk about “ centralization” and “ State rights.” 
That is the old dodge. The South has two great staples, cot¬ 
ton and State rights. They sell their cotton to the Republi¬ 
cans and stuff the Democrats with the other crop. When 
Judge Black was taken prisoner by the Confederates, he asked 
his captors what they were fighting for. “ Well,” said one of 
them, “ I don't exactly know, but if there are any of my rights 
that I haven't got, I want 'em." It is a fair illustration of 
the unmeaning clamor for State rights. 

Consider it for a moment. We have four governments: 
the town, county, State, and United States. The town is by far 
the most important. It exercises more control over our persons, 
property, health, and liberties than all the other govern¬ 
ments combined. It makes the roads, takes care of the poor, 
builds the school-house, the bridge, the market, supplies water 


294 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


and light, puts out fires, settles our disputes, and guards our 
homes. Every day and hour we feel the protection and re¬ 
straint of town law. And if it were not for these Presidential 
elections, a man might spend his whole life in this country 
(the South in the mean while keeping the peace) and never 
find out there was a United States government. Next in 
importance comes the county, then the State, and last of all 
the United States. Each has its duties to perform, and 
neither can properly interfere with the other. The constitu¬ 
tions of the several States and of the United States define 
these duties very distinctly. There is no contradiction nor 
collision. But when some bill not favorable to the Confed¬ 
erates is proposed in Congress which they cannot oppose on 
its merits, they raise the cry of “ centralization and State 
rights.” It is all very good, say the Northern allies, but it 
ought to be passed by the States. 

When the Republicans passed a law providing that mem¬ 
bers of Congress should be elected on the same day in all 
the States, so as to avoid the possibility of colonization, they 
dared not-say they wanted to colonize voters, and so they called 
it “ centralization.” So when a Republican Congress fixed the 
time and manner of electing United States Senators, so as to 
avoid the party trickery and frauds often practised under the 
old system, they do not dare say they want an opportunity 
to commit these frauds, and so they cry “ centralization.” 
“ State rights” was their cry when they repealed the Missouri 
Compromise, although the purpose was to make Kansas a 
slave State. So they voted down the Wilmot Proviso to 
make California a slave State, but they shouted for “ State 
rights.” They shouted “ State rights” in 1861 as they saw 
the South seceding under Buchanan. And during the whole 
war they recorded their votes against Union legislation, crying 
“ State rights,” “ no centralization,” “ no coercion.” They 
smelled centralization in the greenback and national currency, 


SPEECHES. 


295 


in the laws to protect Northern citizens and the colored people 
in the South, and recorded their votes against them. 

So now when they are trying to repeal the laws which 
provide against frauds in the large cities at the Presidential 
election, they do not dare to avow their purpose to re-enact the 
frauds in New York and elsewhere, and so they declare they 
are only anxious to vindicate State rights ; but unfortunately 
for their sincerity, they have always been equally hostile to 
similar State legislation. They have always opposed registra¬ 
tion and the prosecution of frauds and forgeries in naturaliza¬ 
tion, and all laws for the protection and purity of the ballot- 
box. Only last April they fought the new constitution for 
the State of Indiana mainly because it provided for an honest 
election. When they cry free ballot they mean free fraud. 

They have not always been so fearful of centralization. 
Before the war, when they controlled the government, they 
wielded the whole Federal power with cruel energy for the 
propagation of slavery. They made the whole North a hunt¬ 
ing-ground for the pretended fugitives and every Northern 
man a slave-hunter. He was required under cruel penalties 
to join the chase whenever a pursuing master blew his horn. 
When the master used the Federal government to put his heel 
on the free thought, free speech, and free press of the North, 
you heard no Democratic murmur about State rights and 
centralization. It is only when the North is predominant 
and proposes measures for the preservation of the Union, the 
purity of the ballot-box, the protection of the lives and prop¬ 
erty of all citizens alike, that you hear from the Democratic 
wigwam a loud wail for State rights. 

They had no fear of centralization in 1877 when they voted 
on the electoral commission to set aside the action of “ sov¬ 
ereign States” in the appointment of electors. They had no 
fear of centralization when in the last session of Congress they 
arranged the machinery whereby the vote of a State in the 


296 


GLENNI W. SCOFIELD. 


coming election may be rejected by a mere party majority. 
They had no fear of centralization when in 1879 they created 
a National Board of Health with large appropriations to be 
expended in the South. Nor when in the last session they 
agreed to waste four million dollars on trafficless streams and 
harbors in the South. Their State rights fervor cools wonder¬ 
fully when the South makes her demands, and waxes hot only 
when necessary, humane or Union legislation not in Confed¬ 
erate interests is proposed. 

The Northern Democracy has ever been led into error by 
their State rights teachers in the South. They are compelled 
to acknowledge that in every party issue since the Republican 
party was formed a quarter of a century ago, they have taken 
the wrong side. But while they abandon their positions year 
after year, they hold on to their Southern theories, which still 
lead them into new errors. 

They are like the old trapper who came very often to get 
the bounty on wolf-scalps. His scalps were always young. 
It looked suspicious, and he was investigated and found to be 
keeping a couple of old breeders and drawing the bounty on 
every litter. 

“ State rights” and “ centralization” are the old mischief 
and treason breeders in the South. No matter what wrong 
they are trying to perpetrate, their Northern apologists appear 
in every campaign with a lot of snarling cubs in their arms. 
It was supposed the old wolves were despatched at Appomat¬ 
tox, but they managed to escape, and now the allies are out 
again with the cub-scalps demanding more bounty. Let us 
scalp the breeders in this election and cease paying tribute to 
the South. 


THE END. 



. i 


























I 


s 




\ 






















0 






% 



















































































